Taking Questions on Creationism

[AV1611VET]

How were the poles warm without getting direct sunlight from an overhead Sun?

I don't know.

Some believe there was a water canopy that refracted the light in such a way as to make the earth a tropical paradise.

And again, why do we see tens of thousands of annual ice layers at the current poles?

Melting and refreezing, melting and refreezing, melting and refreezing?

 

[doubtingmerle]

That's a common mistake. Chapter 2 is a parenthetical enlargement of specific events which took place in chapter 1.

...with a different order of creation, at least in the KJV.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, and could that frame narrative represent billions of years?

So Adam was first, then the animals? That's odd, because we find many animal fossils below the first human fossil.

This is why discussions on creationism need to be confined to Genesis 1.

 

[doubtingmerle]

True, but where were the polar bears ?

They had not evolved yet, perhaps?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I don't know.

Some believe there was a water canopy that refracted the light in such a way as to make the earth a tropical paradise.
Melting and refreezing, melting and refreezing, melting and refreezing?

Buzzzzzzt.

Oh, so sorry, wrong answer, but thanks for trying.

See Ice Core Dating.

 

[BradB]

How were the poles warm without getting direct sunlight from an overhead Sun?

And again, why do we see tens of thousands of annual ice layers at the current poles?

It's actually been shown that counting ice layers is as scientific as putting your ear to the ground to guess how many soldiers are marching into battle. Several layers are known to be laid down within one year as a result of ice storms. Also the deeper you go down in the cores the more the counting becomes guessing rather than actual counting due to one layer becoming less and less distinguishable from the other.

 

[BradB]

Or not.

Or so...
The text makes this clear if you are not trying to read into it what it does not say.

 

[BradB]

...with a different order of creation, at least in the KJV.

The text is pretty clear that its not giving us an "order." It is going back and looking at certain things and expounding upon them. Genesis 1 gives us the order, Genesis 2:1-3 makes it clear that God was finished with the creation.

Verses 4-6 is only an explanation of the earths watering system put into place before the herbs or people were formed. In verse 7 we get a look at the formation of man.

 

[Speedwell]

Or so...
The text makes this clear if you are not trying to read into it what it does not say.

There are two different texts in two very different styles--some say by different authors. Why do you think there is only one text? Aren't you reading that into it?

 

[AV1611VET]

There are two different texts in two very different styles--some say by different authors. Why do you think there is only one text? Aren't you reading that into it?

Just two?

Is that all they got?

Our Bible was dictated to some forty authors, who wrote It down in their own style.

 

[KWCrazy]

...with a different order of creation, at least in the KJV.

Genesis 2 is not a creation narrative. There is no difference in the timeline of creation.

 

[BradB]

There are two different texts in two very different styles--some say by different authors. Why do you think there is only one text? Aren't you reading that into it?

Can you please expound and give me examples of these differences that would drastically change important doctrines?

 

[Speedwell]

Can you please expound and give me examples of these differences that would drastically change important doctrines?

There are none that I know of. That is why I am curious as to why you insist that Gen 1 & 2 form a single continuous narrative. Those who take them as two different texts redacted together arrive at the same Nicene christianity as I preume you to espouse.

 

[BradB]

There are none that I know of. That is why I am curious as to why you insist that Gen 1 & 2 form a single continuous narrative. Those who take them as two different texts redacted together arrive at the same Nicene christianity as I preume you to espouse.

I'm sorry you lost me friend. I pointed to the fact that Genesis 2 is not a conflicting order of creation to Genesis 1, but rather is merely a parenthetical enlargement of certain things which took place in chapter 1. I also pointed out how the text actually bares this out. To this you implied (I thought) that there were actually two different ancient manuscripts of Genesis which had different "styles" and authors. I merely wanted you to expound on this by citing the texts and how exactly they differ? To which you now say there are none that you know of. So I think our wires got crossed somewhere and I might have misunderstood what you were actually saying. If you are able to clear up the confusion I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm sorry you lost me friend. I pointed to the fact that Genesis 2 is not a conflicting order of creation to Genesis 1, but rather is merely a parenthetical enlargement of certain things which took place in chapter 1. I also pointed out how the text actually bares this out. To this you implied (I thought) that there were actually two different ancient manuscripts of Genesis which had different "styles" and authors. I merely wanted you to expound on this by citing the texts and how exactly they differ? To which you now say there are none that you know of. So I think our wires got crossed somewhere and I might have misunderstood what you were actually saying. If you are able to clear up the confusion I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

There are two positions under consideration:

1) That Gen 1 & 2 form a continuous narrative as you describe, with Gen 2 being a "parenthetical enlargement" of Gen 1.

2) That Gen 1 and Gen 2 are actually two different ancient manuscripts edited together.

Both positions lead to and support the same Nicene christianity, so there is no difference "which would drastically change important doctrines" as you put it.

 

[BradB]

There are two positions under consideration:

1) That Gen 1 & 2 form a continuous narrative as you describe, with Gen 2 being a "parenthetical enlargement" of Gen 1.

2) That Gen 1 and Gen 2 are actually two different ancient manuscripts edited together.

Both positions lead to and support the same Nicene christianity, so there is no difference "which would drastically change important doctrines" as you put it.

I would disagree since there are actually thousands of ancient manuscript copies of the Old Testament text found in such broad of areas but that are in full agreement that it would be impossible to make later additions. What that tells us is we can trust that the ancient text was transmitted to us very accurately over time. There are none of the ancient texts with the so called "edited" portions missing. Therefore we can trust that Genesis 1 and 2 had the same author. This then would mean he was either a complete moron who contradicted himself or the best sense of the two chapters is the most obvious sense, and any other sense is nonsense. It means that they do agree and the author only meant to expand on the events he describes in order in chapter one. We also can be assured that the author was just one and was trust worthy since Jesus and the disciples reference Genesis several times as inspired text.

 

[Speedwell]

I would disagree...

Since you disagree, you must have in mind important doctrines which would be "drastically changed" by the two-text assumption. What are they?

 

[doubtingmerle]

The text is pretty clear that its not giving us an "order." It is going back and looking at certain things and expounding upon them. Genesis 1 gives us the order, Genesis 2:1-3 makes it clear that God was finished with the creation.

Verses 4-6 is only an explanation of the earths watering system put into place before the herbs or people were formed. In verse 7 we get a look at the formation of man.

I already explained it. In genesis 2 we have a different account in a different order. first we have the creation of man in 2:7-17 , and then in v18-20 God makes animals after he made man (at least he does in the KJV, which is the text AV is defending.) This is a different order from gen 1.

Interestingly, we are told he made the animals because Adam did not have a mate. Fortunately for us Adam didn't see the Gorilla and say, " I'll take that one!" Since Adam didn't like any of the animal choices, he got Eve.

 

[Speedwell]

I already explained it. In genesis 2 we have a different account in a different order. first we have the creation of man in 2:7-17 , and then in v18-20 God makes animals after he made man (at least he does in the KJV, which is the text AV is defending.) This is a different order from gen 1.

Interestingly, we are told he made the animals because Adam did not have a mate. Fortunately for us Adam didn't see the Gorilla and say, " I'll take that one!" Since Adam didn't like any of the animal choices, he got Eve.

But if you assume that Gen 1 & 2 originated as two different ancient texts, all those "contradictions" go away and the assumption does no harm whatever to essential Christian doctrine.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It's actually been shown that counting ice layers is as scientific as putting your ear to the ground to guess how many soldiers are marching into battle. Several layers are known to be laid down within one year as a result of ice storms. Also the deeper you go down in the cores the more the counting becomes guessing rather than actual counting due to one layer becoming less and less distinguishable from the other.

Uh, you got a source on that claim? Actually 30000 layers have been counted before the layers fade. And there are multiple methods of determining that the layers found are really annual layers. See https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...6ANEQFgh9MBE&usg=AOvVaw2-X3G4CeTg7XUBmwWkgbP1