Exodus 20:9-11 (Creation)

[Kenny'sID]

And we know to use the bible in that way to dismiss all other evidence because . . . (insert evidence here)

You throw all that "evidence" you speak of into one pot as something we should use when some of it might be useful while other so-called evidence might be completely ludicrous to some of us.

It would take a lot of posts to go through it all so as it stands, it's almost impossible to agree with you when we can't possibly know what you consider evidence. See the dilemma?

 

[Queller]

Genesis provides two contradictory chronologies. Just in case they may be helpful to you, have included my remarks, below.

1. 
   
   
   

When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.



Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scene, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk” (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.



Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled

“The Creation,” based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from two different time periods.



Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.



There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,” So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.



There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith” written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.



There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.



Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.



Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. Some will say it definitely means creatio ex nihilo. But God created Adam out of dust, not out of nothing. God created Eve out of Adam's rib, not out of nothing. God creates the adult out of the child, not our of nothing. The opening of the Genesis account is ambiguous here. Maybe god creates out of nothing, but maybe out of some preexistence chaos.

I have no idea why you posted this huge block of text in response to my post. I also don't understand why you have posted the same huge wall-o-text four times on this page of the thread alone. Could you at least attempt to personalize the response and format it correctly?

I usually appreciate your posts but this does not do you justice.

BTW, I readily acknowledge there are inconsistencies in the Bible. One of my "favorite" ones is how many blind men Jesus healed in the vicinity of Jericho. There are three different accounts in the NT, all of which disagree on not just the details, but the basics.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Just like some Christians do with the Bible, right?

IDK, you'll have to give me an example. Did someone do that here?

Do I do what?

The subject was you changing the wording of someones post to mean what you wanted it to, so I naturally figured you would understand my question to mean do you change the wording or add to the wording in the Bible as well, in order to draw conclusion.

 

[ScottA]

1. So we can't trust the eyes God gave us, the hands God gave us, the brains God gave us?

Apparently we can't trust the Bible either;

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork."

The plea from God is that man turn from his evil ways, i.e. your evil eyes and perception, the evil works of your hands, and your evil mindedness.

And in the good words of the good that He has created, you see only deceit.

2. Quite the contrary, every understanding of God is man's understanding. Your comment shows that as well.

There are many who see god through their own eyes and speak falsely of the God they do not know. But there are also many, who do not speak, but the Holy Spirit of God speaks through them...and these you despise.

3. And how do tell the difference between the two? Is the only the one that agrees with our preconceived ideas? If "we" have the mind of Christ then how can we have different opinions about the Bible?

We hear His voice, and do not speak, but He speaks, and we do not do our will, but His will. But you ask, because you know nothing of it.

 

[SkyWriting]

No, the genealogies from Adam to Christ date the earth.

So these BC estimates below are what you consider God's truth?
Have you considered Astrology?
The number 12 is a highly respected and practical number. It has many factors for such a low number, so it is one of the lowest easily-divisible numbers. Number 11 is not divisible, number 10 only has two factors (2 and 5) meaning that if you measure anything in tens, you can only divide it into either halves or pairs. Number 9 only divides into 3, number 8 only into 2 and 4, number 7 is a prime number with no factors, number 6 only breaks down into half or thirds, number 5 is a prime, you can only halve number 4 or 2, and 3 and 1 don't divide and are so small you wouldn't want to measure things in them, anyway. Number 12, however, divides into 6, 4, 3 and 2, giving it a large number of practical uses where things have to be divided up into whole numbers, from calendars to clocks.

5501
5492
5426
5411
5199
4192
4141
4103
4079
4062
4053
4051
4042
4041
4021
4005
4004
4001
3983
3975
3974
3971
3971
3970
3968
3966
3964
3963
3958
3949
3927
3836

 

[ScottA]

The first man and woman was created quite some time before the fall. So how could that be?

This was the word God spoke to Noah and his sons.

 

[Queller]

IDK, you'll have to give me an example. Did someone do that here?

Everyone here does that. Everyone's interpretation of the Bible, is just that, an interpretation.

The subject was you changing the wording of someones post to mean what you wanted it to, so I naturally figured you would understand my question to mean do you change the wording or add to the wording in the Bible as well, in order to draw conclusion.

No, I changed it to be accurate. You, me, him, all us here have our interpretations of the Bible. Your interpretation is no more valid scripturally than mine. Mine does have the advantage of comporting with the evidence God left behind however.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Everyone here does that. Everyone's interpretation of the Bible, is just that, an interpretation.

OK, Id still need specifics in order to reply.

No, I changed it to be accurate.

Like you do the Bible...I see.

 

[Queller]

The plea from God is that man turn from his evil ways, i.e. your evil eyes and perception, the evil works of your hands, and your evil mindedness.

And in the good words of the good that He has created, you see only deceit.

I do no such thing. A young earth interpretation of creation makes God deceitful, therefore the earth cannot be only 6,000-10,000 years old.

There are many who see god through their own eyes and speak falsely of the God they do not know. But there are also many, who do not speak, but the Holy Spirit of God speaks through them...and these you despise.

I do no such thing. I find a literalist interpretation of the Bible silly and demeaning to God, but I don't despise those who espouse it. I simply find them misguided.

Not to mention that for your logic to hold true, you must also despise those that hold a different view from you.

We hear His voice, and do not speak, but He speaks, and we do not do our will, but His will.

All Christians believe the same thing, even those whose interpretation differs from yours.

But you ask, because you know nothing of it.

Ah yes, another so-called Christian who believes that they can see into the heart, mind, and soul of someone else over the internet.

 

[Queller]

OK, Id still need specifics in order to reply.

Look at everyone's posts, they're all interpretations.

Like you do the Bible...I see.

I do not add words to the Bible. I (and millions of other Christians) simply interpret it differently than you.

I find it quite amusing and telling that you only selectively respond to parts of my posts. Find something you can't argue against?

 

[ScottA]

I do no such thing. A young earth interpretation of creation makes God deceitful, therefore the earth cannot be only 6,000-10,000 years old.

I do no such thing. I find a literalist interpretation of the Bible silly and demeaning to God, but I don't despise those who espouse it. I simply find them misguided.

Not to mention that for your logic to hold true, you must also despise those that hold a different view from you.

Your thoughts are not His thoughts. Isaiah 55:9 But my thoughts are His thoughts...and you think it all silly.

All Christians believe the same thing, even those whose interpretation differs from yours.

There is no difference of interpretation, only those who receive the truth, and those who do not.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You throw all that "evidence" you speak of into one pot as something we should use when some of it might be useful while other so-called evidence might be completely ludicrous to some of us.

It would take a lot of posts to go through it all so as it stands, it's almost impossible to agree with you when we can't possibly know what you consider evidence. See the dilemma?

It is true that the evidence for the age of the earth and evolution is gigantic, even overwhelming; it is the unreasoning rejection of that evidence I deplore. There's no need to expect ME to be the one to defend the idea of evolution, its been quite well presented and defended ever since Darwin, and all of us have observed the opposition is typically based on religion and typically misunderstands the evidence put forth. Meanwhile, new evidence for evolution is regularly discovered and published.

For example, the fact that our genomes share exogenous retroviral inserts with other species, proof of sharing common ancestors that acquired them, is something that has only come to the fore in the past few years.

http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm

This evidence needs to be accounted for, considered, when deciding how to accept the biblical revelation . . . as literal? As allegorical?

It deserves its chance to be heard, but rejecting it out of hand because you've already decided for your Biblical interpretation without considering this evidence is . . . not logical.

 

[ScottA]

It is true that the evidence for the age of the earth and evolution is gigantic, even overwhelming; it is the unreasoning rejection of that evidence I deplore. There's no need to expect ME to be the one to defend the idea of evolution, its been quite well presented and defended ever since Darwin, and all of us have observed the opposition is typically based on religion and typically misunderstands the evidence put forth. Meanwhile, new evidence for evolution is regularly discovered and published.

For example, the fact that our genomes share exogenous retroviral inserts with other species, proof of sharing common ancestors that acquired them, is something that has only come to the fore in the past few years.

http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm

This evidence needs to be accounted for, considered, when deciding how to accept the biblical revelation . . . as literal? As allegorical?

It deserves its chance to be heard, but rejecting it out of hand because you've already decided for your Biblical interpretation without considering this evidence is . . . not logical.

When should one stop believing the word of God and start believing the word of men?

On the contrary, you misunderstand. The measure of evidence you refer to, is the measure of the pit that has been made that such unbelief is cast into.

Is God so lacking in authority in your eyes and mind, that you would believe that men's knowledge can supersede His?

Keep digging, you are almost home!

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Your thoughts are not His thoughts. Isaiah 55:9 But my thoughts are His thoughts...and you think it all silly.

There is no difference of interpretation, only those who receive the truth, and those who do not.

The evidence is against you when you deny evolution and the age of the earth. I don't think you are silly, though I do think you are wrong.

 

[ScottA]

The evidence is against you when you deny evolution and the age of the earth. I don't think you are silly, though I do think you are wrong.

Keep digging.

 

[Hoghead1]

I have no idea why you posted this huge block of text in response to my post. I also don't understand why you have posted the same huge wall-o-text four times on this page of the thread alone. Could you at least attempt to personalize the response and format it correctly?

I usually appreciate your posts but this does not do you justice.

BTW, I readily acknowledge there are inconsistencies in the Bible. One of my "favorite" ones is how many blind men Jesus healed in the vicinity of Jericho. There are three different accounts in the NT, all of which disagree on not just the details, but the basics.

I am unaware how many times I posted it. Generally, I posted it where the discussion turned to biblical contradictions. I don't know what you mean about correct formatting and probably don't care. I am taking the risk of speaking informally, without editing, here. I stand by anything I said. I know it to be solid material and feel it is worthwhile sharing.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I find it quite amusing and telling that you only selectively respond to parts of my posts. Find something you can't argue against?

Sorry, again, I didn't want to spend a lot of time on this so I just responded to the part I read.

 

[Kenny'sID]

There's no need to expect ME to be the one to defend the idea of evolution,

I don't, like I said, it would be way too time consuming to go through everything.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It deserves its chance to be heard, but rejecting it out of hand because you've already decided for your Biblical interpretation without considering this evidence is . . . not logical.

That is a wrong assumption, It has been heard, I've seen/considered it, and thus far, have seen nothing that convinces me evolution is a fact.

 

[Hoghead1]

That is a wrong assumption, It has been heard, I've seen/considered it, and thus far, have seen nothing that convinces me evolution is a fact.

Yes, but whether or not you are convinced is no measure of how valid it is. It sure is funny that you, as a lay person, go one way and the scientists another. Could it be, do you think, that they know something you don't? Nah. You're probably right. What do all these scientists know anyway? Why, heck, the average Joe can see right through them. Don't even need to crack a book.