Genesis & Evolution (moved)

[Aman777]

But as I have said before and will say again, Genesis provides two conflicting accounts of creation. I add that there has been considerable controversy over how to interpret the length of the days in the first account, a concept which is not al all in the second. Does day mean 24 hours? St. Augustine suggested that idea was utter nonsenses. Does it mean, as the Bible elsewhere says, that to God, a thousand of our years is but a day? Gen. 2 is radically different, as it gives a different, but more concrete notion of the time creation took. Accordingly, the animals and Eve were created during the lifespan of a man, Adam. Of course, it doesn't say exactly ho long of a lifetime, but it does give us a more concrete chronology We need to remember that, in the Bible, God's salvific revelations occur in history, not nature. Hence, the authors blew off the whole matter of creation, gave it little attention of clarification, because they were primarily focused describing God's acts in history of Israel. We also need to remember this is what sets Judaism off from many other religions. Many religions were nature-focused, using God or the gods as an explanatory principle of natural processes. They produced creation myths that go on and on, in sharp to the brevity of the Genesis myth.

False interpretation since God is NOT a liar as is supposed by those who see contradicting accounts of the Creation. Amen?

 

[BobRyan]

But as I have said before and will say again, Genesis provides two conflicting accounts of creation.

But not if we pay attention to the details in the actual chapters.

1. They are not two accounts - but rather one account composed of a time-boxed chronological sequence and an expanded section dealing primarily with events in the Garden of Eden that gives no explicit "second chronology" at all.
2. there are no chapters in the actual text.
3. There is no time-boxed chronological sequence in Genesis 2.
4. There is no statement in Genesis two saying "after God created man - he then created animals".
5. By contrast in Genesis 1 - on days 5 and 6 God created animals in a time-boxed chronological sequence - and ends day 6 with the creation of mankind - all on the same "evening and morning". --

It doesn't take rocket science to see a major contradiction in the points you merely 'assume' in a chapter that has no time-boxed chronological sequence at all (Gen 2).

In fact nothing at all is stated in Genesis 2 for the details in terms of how many decades, centuries, millennia... for the time you need Genesis 1.

Now, if you have some insight that will just dazzle the rest of us into erasing the contradictions between your own assumptions vs the facts in the actual chapters, let's hear it.

Also the situation with Daniel is instructive as it also demonstrates Hebrew writings styles - with the same Chiastic structure and the same 'expand and enlarge' pattern that adds details to the picture the way we do today with transparencies laid on top of each other.

In Genesis 1 the birds and fish were created on the 5th day "and evening and morning were the 5th day" and that "on the 6th day" God created the land animals -- and then mankind - "and evening and morning where the 6th day" in true time-boxed chronological sequence - an historic account - text.

By contrast in Genesis 2 - no timeline at all.

Genesis 2 does NOT say "mankind was created before animals" -- as we all know.
and that this is a major contradiction in the case you make - we would have to "quote you" for the source.

I add that there has been considerable controversy over how to interpret the length of the days in the first account, a concept which is not al all in the second.

Indeed - there is no timeframe at a ALL given in Genesis 2 - for the reader to use in opposing the timeline of Genesis 1

Does day mean 24 hours? St. Augustine suggested that idea was utter nonsenses.

Augustine argued that 7 days was TOO LONG and that some vastly shorter time frame must be intended rather than 7 real 24 hour days. NOT because the text demands it - but because Augustine "imagined" that God would never choose to spend 6 whole days on the project when He can simply snap His fingers and the entire project is done.

Is it your claim that you also share Augustine's view that 7 actual 24 hr days would be "too long"??

If not - why are you going there?

Does it mean, as the Bible elsewhere says, that to God, a thousand of our years is but a day?

That "some place else" is not describing any chronological sequence at all and it makes its case by saying it "both ways" -- "A day is as a 1000 years and 1000 years is as a day" - no time is too short for God to accomplish His will and no time is too long for Him to patiently wait and plan.

Gen. 2 is radically different, as it gives a different, but more concrete notion of the time creation took.

Not true at all. Gen 2 gives no time at all for creation.

We need to remember that, in the Bible, God's salvific revelations occur in history, not nature.

As it turns out - history is a record of events that took place in real life - 3-D - nature.

Hence, the authors blew off the whole matter of creation, gave it little attention of clarification, because they were primarily focused describing God's acts in history of Israel.

Not true in Genesis 1 and not true in the NT as Paul points to the "very details" in the text as being absolutely true "man was created first and then woman".

 

[Hoghead1]

But not if we pay attention to the details in the actual chapters.

1. They are not two accounts - but rather one account composed of a time-boxed chronological sequence and an expanded section dealing primarily with events in the Garden of Eden that gives no explicit "second chronology" at all.
2. there are no chapters in the actual text.
3. There is no time-boxed chronological sequence in Genesis 2.
4. There is no statement in Genesis two saying "after God created man - he then created animals".
5. By contrast in Genesis 1 - on days 5 and 6 God created animals in a time-boxed chronological sequence - and ends day 6 with the creation of mankind - all on the same "evening and morning". --

It doesn't take rocket science to see a major contradiction in the points you merely 'assume' in a chapter that has no time-boxed chronological sequence at all (Gen 2).

In fact nothing at all is stated in Genesis 2 for the details in terms of how many decades, centuries, millennia... for the time you need Genesis 1.

Now, if you have some insight that will just dazzle the rest of us into erasing the contradictions between your own assumptions vs the facts in the actual chapters, let's hear it.

Also the situation with Daniel is instructive as it also demonstrates Hebrew writings styles - with the same Chiastic structure and the same 'expand and enlarge' pattern that adds details to the picture the way we do today with transparencies laid on top of each other.

In Genesis 1 the birds and fish were created on the 5th day "and evening and morning were the 5th day" and that "on the 6th day" God created the land animals -- and then mankind - "and evening and morning where the 6th day" in true time-boxed chronological sequence - an historic account - text.

By contrast in Genesis 2 - no timeline at all.

Genesis 2 does NOT say "mankind was created before animals" -- as we all know.
and that this is a major contradiction in the case you make - we would have to "quote you" for the source.



Indeed - there is no timeframe at a ALL given in Genesis 2 - for the reader to use in opposing the timeline of Genesis 1



Augustine argued that 7 days was TOO LONG and that some vastly shorter time frame must be intended rather than 7 real 24 hour days. NOT because the text demands it - but because Augustine "imagined" that God would never choose to spend 6 whole days on the project when He can simply snap His fingers and the entire project is done.

Is it your claim that you also share Augustine's view that 7 actual 24 hr days would be "too long"??

If not - why are you going there?



That "some place else" is not describing any chronological sequence at all and it makes its case by saying it "both ways" -- "A day is as a 1000 years and 1000 years is as a day" - no time is too short for God to accomplish His will and no time is too long for Him to patiently wait and plan.



Not true at all. Gen 2 gives no time at all for creation.



As it turns out - history is a record of events that took place in real life - 3-D - nature.



Not true in Genesis 1 and not true in the NT as Paul points to the "very details" in the text as being absolutely true "man was created first and then woman".

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't think you quite understand my point. I brought up Augustine because it is one example of the various conflicting interpretations of Genesis, that it is not clear what is meant by days or how this should be interpreted. Augustine God did it in an instant, because, steeped in Hellenic philosophy, Augustine must keep God clear o all change an that means movements through time.
When I say Scripture has no interest nature, you have to remember that there is a vast difference between talking about history and talking about nature. Christ on the Cross certainly made a difference in human history; but, what, if anything did it do the dogs an cats of the world? Did it add or change any laws in nature? When Moses came down from the mountain, what natural laws did he bring? Did he have an additional tablet with laws of nature written on it, F=MA, etc.? No, of course not. Moses was primarily concerned with laws regarding us and our social interactions?
Regarding Gen. 2: It gives a very specific time length for creation. According, creation occurred within the lifetime of am man , Adam. Gen. 2 stands in position with 1 in that 1 has, first, animals, then man. Gen. 2 has first man, then animals, then Eve. Also, careful linguistic analysis, based on a number of significant factors find Gen. 2 to have been written long before Gen. 1. Gen. 2 is not a further spelling out of Gen. 1. Compared with the amount of historical material the Bible describes its creation account is very small and lacks key details. Only about a page and a half long, compared to pages and pages on the history of Israel. If you look at nature religions, where God or the gods, are the explanatory principle, the creation myths can go on for up to a thousand pages. And no, Gen. I and two give almost no key detail. Why did God create, how? Gen. 1 provides no answers. How did God create? Out of nothing or out of some preexistent chaos? Gen. 1 is very ambiguous here. What is the basic structure of reality? All matter? All spirit? Both? What?

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't think you quite understand my point. I brought up Augustine because it is one example of the various conflicting interpretations of Genesis, that it is not clear what is meant by days or how this should be interpreted. Augustine God did it in an instant, because, steeped in Hellenic philosophy, Augustine must keep God clear o all change an that means movements through time.
When I say Scripture has no interest nature, you have to remember that there is a vast difference between talking about history and talking about nature. Christ on the Cross certainly made a difference in human history; but, what, if anything did it do the dogs an cats of the world? Did it add or change any laws in nature? When Moses came down from the mountain, what natural laws did he bring? Did he have an additional tablet with laws of nature written on it, F=MA, etc.? No, of course not. Moses was primarily concerned with laws regarding us and our social interactions?
Regarding Gen. 2: It gives a very specific time length for creation. According, creation occurred within the lifetime of am man , Adam. Gen. 2 stands in position with 1 in that 1 has, first, animals, then man. Gen. 2 has first man, then animals, then Eve. Also, careful linguistic analysis, based on a number of significant factors find Gen. 2 to have been written long before Gen. 1. Gen. 2 is not a further spelling out of Gen. 1. Compared with the amount of historical material the Bible describes its creation account is very small and lacks key details. Only about a page and a half long, compared to pages and pages on the history of Israel. If you look at nature religions, where God or the gods, are the explanatory principle, the creation myths can go on for up to a thousand pages. And no, Gen. I and two give almost no key detail. Why did God create, how? Gen. 1 provides no answers. How did God create? Out of nothing or out of some preexistent chaos? Gen. 1 is very ambiguous here. What is the basic structure of reality? All matter? All spirit? Both? What?

 

[Hoghead1]

The reason why I argue that Gen. 1 and Gen.2 are two separate accounts, is based on their stated content , plus a through literary analysis, which has led scholars to conclude the two accounts were written by different authors and at very different times. Gen. 2 appears to have been written long before Gen. 1. Hence, it is incorrect to assume Gen. 2 is further spelling out of Gen. 1. Gen. 2 plainly does give a very different order of events than 1. Anyone can plainly see that. However, some no thinking readers have argued this is not the real chronology the author had in mind. Hence, for some strange reason the order in which he presents material is not the real chronology he has in mind. What order he have in mind? The same as Gen. 1. After all, they are both by the same author, with 2 a further explication of 1. Doesn't work. Fact is, Gen. 2 was written by a different author way before Gen. 1. Furthermore, there is no statement saying that the author of 2 really has in mind the c\chronology of 1. Why would one and the same author on page 1 state what he takes to be the chronological sequence of events, and then , right on the next page, throw it to the wind in his exposition? Anyhow this whole approach is aided, because it arbitrarily assumes that Scripture has to be inerrant and therefore cannot contain any contradictions. Who says that is true, in the first place?

 

[BobRyan]

The reason why I argue that Gen. 1 and Gen.2 are two separate accounts, is based on their stated content , plus a through literary analysis

if we pay attention to the details in the actual chapters.

1. They are not two accounts - but rather one account composed of a time-boxed chronological sequence and an expanded section dealing primarily with events in the Garden of Eden that gives no explicit "second chronology" at all.
2. there are no chapters in the actual text.
3. There is no time-boxed chronological sequence in Genesis 2.
4. There is no statement in Genesis two saying "after God created man - he then created animals".
5. By contrast in Genesis 1 - on days 5 and 6 God created animals in a time-boxed chronological sequence - and ends day 6 with the creation of mankind - all on the same "evening and morning". -

Hence, it is incorrect to assume Gen. 2 is an entirely contradictory account stuck in to confuse the reader and make the bible appear unreliable.

i Gen. 2 plainly does give a set of details with no chronology at all - much less a contradictory one. And it is focused on Eden - not the entire world. By contrast Genesis 1 is explicitly the entire planet.

Anyone can plainly see that.

However, some readers using "extreme inference" conjure up a "contradictory chronology" in Gen 2 - ignoring the fact that Gen 2 gives no chronology at all.

What order he have in mind? The same as Gen. 1. After all, they are both by the same author, with 2 a further explication of 1. Works perfectly. Gen. 2 was written by the same author as Gen. 1. And the Bible says that the entire account was placed in the Ark at Sinai.

Why would the author of chapter 2 (in the fictional story where it is a different author ) not simply "see" that the previous chapter already had a certain explicit chronology? What would stop them from seeing chapter 1 as they added in chapter 2. Or is the idea that some evil "Bible believing creationist Christian" assembled the book of Genesis in the dark of the night?

It doesn't take rocket science to see a major contradiction in the points you merely 'assume' in a chapter that has no time-boxed chronological sequence at all (Gen 2).

In fact nothing at all is stated in Genesis 2 for the details in terms of how many decades, centuries, millennia... because for the time element you need Genesis 1.[/QUOTE]

 

[BobRyan]

I don't think you quite understand my point. I brought up Augustine because it is one example of the various conflicting interpretations of Genesis, that it is not clear what is meant by days or how this should be interpreted.

Except you ignored two key facts.

1. Augustine was not arguing that the text was claiming some non-7 day timeline and this forced him to abandon the 7 day facts in the text. Rather he argued that his own PREFERENCE forced him to look for some other timeline other than what is actually in the text.

2. His preference was for a SHORTER timeline than 7 literal days - and this is what he attempted to eisegete into the text. But he never claims that the text itself did not have the 7 day content that... it has.

If your argument is "if Augustine gets to eisegete his own ideas and preference into the text no matter what it says to the contrary - for his SHORTER timeline... then others should be able to eisegete any ol timeline that they feel or imagine or prefer by those same standards of eisegesis" I would agree - that once you get into "eisegete your own preference into the text -- after all it is only the Bible" mode of thinking - pretty much anything goes.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Aman777]

↑
The reason why I argue that Gen. 1 and Gen.2 are two separate accounts, is based on their stated content , plus a through literary analysis
if we pay attention to the details in the actual chapters.

Bob:>>1. They are not two accounts - but rather one account composed of a time-boxed chronological sequence and an expanded section dealing primarily with events in the Garden of Eden that gives no explicit "second chronology" at all.

Genesis one is the entire history of the Creation including future events which happen AFTER Jesus returns to our Planet.

Bob:>>2. there are no chapters in the actual text.
3. There is no time-boxed chronological sequence in Genesis 2.

Sure there is. Gen 2:4 takes us back to the 3rd Day, then brings us to some 12-15k years ago, in man's time, when Eve was made on the present 6th Day. Gen 2:22 Each of God's Days is better understood as a Age since each Day is more than 4 Billion years in man's time.

Bob:>>4. There is no statement in Genesis two saying "after God created man - he then created animals".

Amen, since God didn't say it like you want Him to say it. Gen 2:4-7 shows that Adam was made BEFORE the plants, herbs and trees, which grew on the 3rd Day. Gen 1:12 Adam was the ONLY creature for Billions of years before ANY other creature was made on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21

Bob:>>5. By contrast in Genesis 1 - on days 5 and 6 God created animals in a time-boxed chronological sequence - and ends day 6 with the creation of mankind - all on the same "evening and morning".

The end of Day 6 is FUTURE since Jesus MUST return to Earth to fulfill the Prophecy of Gen 1:28-31. We live Today at Gen 1:27 since God is STILL creating Adam (Heb-mankind) in His Image or in Christ.

Bob:>>Hence, it is incorrect to assume Gen. 2 is an entirely contradictory account stuck in to confuse the reader and make the bible appear unreliable.

i Gen. 2 plainly does give a set of details with no chronology at all - much less a contradictory one. And it is focused on Eden - not the entire world. By contrast Genesis 1 is explicitly the entire planet.

Anyone can plainly see that.<<

Not me, since it's not in Scripture. What is in Scripture is that Adam's world was on the same Earth as the Garden of Eden, but included the sons of God (Prehistoric people made from the water on Day 5) who did not live in the Garden. Cain went to the land of Nod on the East of Eden and found his wife.

Bob:>>However, some readers using "extreme inference" conjure up a "contradictory chronology" in Gen 2 - ignoring the fact that Gen 2 gives no chronology at all.

What order he have in mind? The same as Gen. 1. After all, they are both by the same author, with 2 a further explication of 1. Works perfectly. Gen. 2 was written by the same author as Gen. 1. And the Bible says that the entire account was placed in the Ark at Sinai.

Amen, but that was AFTER Noah arrived on our Planet in the mountains of Ararat.

Bob:>>Why would the author of chapter 2 (in the fictional story where it is a different author ) not simply "see" that the previous chapter already had a certain explicit chronology? What would stop them from seeing chapter 1 as they added in chapter 2. Or is the idea that some evil "Bible believing creationist Christian" assembled the book of Genesis in the dark of the night?

It doesn't take rocket science to see a major contradiction in the points you merely 'assume' in a chapter that has no time-boxed chronological sequence at all (Gen 2).

In fact nothing at all is stated in Genesis 2 for the details in terms of how many decades, centuries, millennia... because for the time element you need Genesis 1.

It's really Simple. Genesis one is the entire History of the creation including events at the end of the present 6th Day. Gen 2:4 takes us back to the events of the 3rd Day when Adam's Earth was made but BEFORE the plants herbs and trees grew.

ALL of the entirety of the rest of the Bible refers BACK to one of God's Seven Days. This is easy to understand when you realize that God has but SEVEN Days/Ages and Today is the 6th Day. Tomorrow, when God's work is finished (brought to perfection) He will rest (Cease to Create) and it will be too late to be born again Spiritually in Christ on the 7th Day, which is Eternity. That is God's Literal Truth of the Creation. Amen?

 

[Hoghead1]

Gen. 2 is definitely a contradictory chronology. This can be seen by the arrangement on the page and by the fact that the creation of the animals here does not occur until Adam is created. They are the effect of seething that already happened with Adam. Arguing the author has in mind Gen. 1 as his true agenda, then, makes no sense. In addition to what I have said, it makes no sense to assume an author would write out a chronology on one page and then, in its explication, does not write in that pattern. If you are going to assume arbitrarily that Gen. 2 truly isn't presented in chronological, then it also makes no sense to assume 1 is necessarily so. I can use your same arbitrary argument and state the author's real chronology is 2, with his explication arbitrarily put in days. Another point is that solid biblical scholarship finds 2 as written long before 1.

 

[Aman777]

Gen. 2 is definitely a contradictory chronology. This can be seen by the arrangement on the page and by the fact that the creation of the animals here does not occur until Adam is created. They are the effect of seething that already happened with Adam. Arguing the author has in mind Gen. 1 as his true agenda, then, makes no sense.

Sure it does IF you understand that Gen chapter 1 is the entire History of the Creation and Gen 2 "adds details" to the account in Genesis 1. Adam was first made on the 3rd Day before the plants and trees. Gen 2:4-7

Adam named the animals made from the dust on the 6th Day. Gen 2:19 Later, AFTER Eve was made Gen 2:22 Adam disobeyed, was cast from the Garden and Cain killed Abel. THEN, Adam and Eve were "created" in God's Image or born again Spiritually in Christ. Gen 5:1-2

*****In addition to what I have said, it makes no sense to assume an author would write out a chronology on one page and then, in its explication, does not write in that pattern. If you are going to assume arbitrarily that Gen. 2 truly isn't presented in chronological, then it also makes no sense to assume 1 is necessarily so. I can use your same arbitrary argument and state the author's real chronology is 2, with his explication arbitrarily put in days. Another point is that solid biblical scholarship finds 2 as written long before 1.******

No problem since I too wrote God's Story of the Creation in a Book. When I finished, I realized WHY God wrote Genesis One last. It's because ALL of the rest of the Bible refers BACK to the first 34 verses of Genesis which show that God has but 7 Days and the 7th is Eternity.

God told us the Entire History of the Creation FIRST so that we could spot those who have NO idea what it says. Amen?

 

[Hoghead1]

When I say that Gen. 1 and two have different chronologies, I do not mean that 2 is an explanation of 1. I mean that it has a reverse chronology from that of 1. Furthermore, 2 adds very few details. For a further explication, it is very week, indeed Also, evidence strongly suggests 2 was written way before 1. I seriously doubt that God wrote these passages in the sense of putting words in the mouth of the scribe. If he did, he seems to hav a memory problem and really can't remember the chronological in which he created.

 

[Aman777]

When I say that Gen. 1 and two have different chronologies, I do not mean that 2 is an explanation of 1. I mean that it has a reverse chronology from that of 1. Furthermore, 2 adds very few details. For a further explication, it is very week, indeed Also, evidence strongly suggests 2 was written way before 1. I seriously doubt that God wrote these passages in the sense of putting words in the mouth of the scribe. If he did, he seems to hav a memory problem and really can't remember the chronological in which he created.

That is the problem with that way of thinking. It falsely supposes that God, the Author of ALL Scripture, made a mistake and wrote contradictions in the first two chapters of Genesis. That would make God look like a fumbling moron instead of the Supreme Intelligence of Creation, according to some.

Beginning at Gen 2:4 the narrative speaks of the 3rd Day, the Day the Earth was made, which was the 3rd Day, according to Gen 1:10. Gen 2:4 ADDS DETAILS to the outline of the 3rd Day in Genesis 1. Throughout the entire rest of the Bible, the details are added to God's 7 Days or Ages, each of which is Billions of years in man's time. Most of the details concern the events of the present 6th Day, the Day of Salvation.

God has but Seven Days and the Future 7th Day is Eternity since it has No evening and NO end. Amen?

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, that is precisely the problem you would have, assuming God authored the text. That's why I totally reject the notion that the scribes were purely passive and wrote just what was dictated to them by God. Scripture may well be divine, but it is stamped all over with human footprints.

 

[Aman777]

Yes, that is precisely the problem you would have, assuming God authored the text. That's why I totally reject the notion that the scribes were purely passive and wrote just what was dictated to them by God. Scripture may well be divine, but it is stamped all over with human footprints.

That is exactly what God tells us:

He tells us that God, the Holy Spirit, moved the men to speak/write what the Holy Spirit, from inside them, moved them to speak:

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Jesus also tells us that some religionists will believe men instead of God.

Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

I might change my mind IF you could produce just one verse which shows that ancient men knew that we live in a Multiverse as Gen 1:8 and Gen 2:4 clearly show. ONLY God knew that fact more than 3k years ago. It's empirical (testable) evidence of the Literal God. Amen?

 

[Hoghead1]

To start with, the fatal flaw in your approach is that is based largely on an unchecked prejudice, namely, the inerrancy theory. This is purely a human-made theory. As such, it needs tested. So, where is the hard evidence? Did you ring Blechley Park and intercept classified information sent by God? The only truly hard evidence are the texts themselves and not only do they present an out-of-date cosmology but also hundreds of contradictions. Hence, the inerrancy proves false, a mere human guess that didn't work. So let's drop it. And if you did that, you wouldn't feel pushed to come up with some screwy math in order to fuse two contradictory texts into one. AS to the multiverse theory, that is definitely rooted in modern cosmology, certainly not Genesis, and is but a theory yet to be proved. Also absolutely none of the biblical passages you cite above and which you take way out of cixtext justify the inerrancy theory.

 

[Aman777]

To start with, the fatal flaw in your approach is that is based largely on an unchecked prejudice, namely, the inerrancy theory. This is purely a human-made theory. As such, it needs tested. So, where is the hard evidence?

The evidence is with the AGREEMENT of the latest scientific discoveries which could NOT have possibly been known by men who lived more than 3k years ago. ONLY God could have known of this agreement so long ago.

***Did you ring Blechley Park and intercept classified information sent by God?

No. All you have to do us read what Genesis actually says instead of what some theologian thought thousands of years ago. Genesis does NOT say what have been taught for thousands of years.

****The only truly hard evidence are the texts themselves and not only do they present an out-of-date cosmology but also hundreds of contradictions.

Amen, IF you believe that you know more than God. However, If God's Story of the Creation IS True, then it MUST agree with every discovery of Science and History.. and it does.

****Hence, the inerrancy proves false, a mere human guess that didn't work. So let's drop it. And if you did that, you wouldn't feel pushed to come up with some screwy math in order to fuse two contradictory texts into one.

Math has nothing to do with the Fact that God tells us He made 1 Heaven on the 2nd Day Gen 1:8 and other HeavenS Gen 2:4 on the 3rd Day. Failure to answer this Scriptural Fact keeps mankind from understanding Genesis. Also, with your view, what in the world is the 3rd Heaven of ll Cor 12:2?

***AS to the multiverse theory, that is definitely rooted in modern cosmology, certainly not Genesis, and is but a theory yet to be proved. Also absolutely none of the biblical passages you cite above and which you take way out of cixtext justify the inerrancy theory.

Waiting on your explanation of the 3rd Heaven, which you keep forgetting about. IF there is a 3rd Heaven or boundary of another Universe, here is the first glimpse of it:

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...s-could-be-first-glimpse-of-another-universe/

Amen?

 

[Hoghead1]

I'm sorry but your interpretation of Gen. as having multiverses, etc., just appears too fanciful an allegory for me to take seriously. I know that people read in all sorts of fanciful hidden meanings into Genesis. Matter of fact, it has been argued that Gen. supports evolution. I stick to the text, not some hidden, secret meaning. As to following theologians, it seems to me you are doing just that, as you are working from the inerrancy theory, a traditional human-made theory about how God was involved in the writing of Scripture.

 

[Aman777]

I'm sorry but your interpretation of Gen. as having multiverses, etc., just appears too fanciful an allegory for me to take seriously. I know that people read in all sorts of fanciful hidden meanings into Genesis. Matter of fact, it has been argued that Gen. supports evolution. I stick to the text, not some hidden, secret meaning. As to following theologians, it seems to me you are doing just that, as you are working from the inerrancy theory, a traditional human-made theory about how God was involved in the writing of Scripture.

Do you deny the following?

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration (God breathed) of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

If men authored the Bible, it would contain errors since it was written long before Science, but if God is the Author, Scripture is inerrant except to unbelievers. Amen?

 

[Hoghead1]

You raised some good questions. I have a lot I could say here, but will try and be brief.
I do not believe that the Holy Spirit causes a miracle by which we are no longer human and subject to error. Obviously, I do not believe the biblical writers were inerrant. In fact, I idol out the Bible, making the Bible perhaps even bigger than God. I don't believe there are any rivals to God, and so I am not about to attribute inerrancy to a mere book, as that would make it equal to God, who alone is all-knowing.
The passages you cite above do not necessarily claim that the Bible is inerrant. Certainly one can claim that certain teachings we should take seriously, yet honor the fact they may contain errors.
Claims the Bible makes about "scripture" are vague, simply because there is no specification is to what is scripture and what not. Nothing like the canon, our Bible came along until much, much later. Choosing what books are to be canon often involved highly arbitrary decisions on the part of the church fathers. That's why we have two Bibles, Protestant and Catholic, or Septuagint and Hebrew. Is the apocraphy canon or not? Greek speaking Jews, yes. Catholic church, yes. Protestantism, initially yes then no, all heretical. Do James and Ester belong in the Bible? Luther said that Ester should be thrown in the Danube, and that James was a "straw epistle", which, in his translation of the Bible, he relegated to a section separate from the rest.

I consider much of the OT a false revelation or account of what not to believe. A question, for example, was asked in this forum why the OT permits slavery. My answer is that the OT was composed by writers in a semi-literate basically barbarian society. At the top, was a warrior god, YHWH, who was the fascist of all fascists, given to cruel, sadistic punishments. Now, I believe God is a God of love. Hence, I do not consider these OT accounts valid at all. Incidentally, my position here represents the early Christian gnostic movement, which the church violently put down.

Hope this answers your questions.