Taking Questions on Creationism

[BradB]

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

For starters the second position puts the Bible in opposition with itself. In the second position chapter 2 is considered to also be an order of creation however it obviously is not in the same order as the first chapter. This would render the book of Genesis a waste of paper. That of course would render the entire gospel meaningless because Jesus said the key to believing in Him is first believing in the writings of Moses. The second position is often used by some to claim that God created over long eras of time rather than 6 literal 24 hour days which of course also conflicts with not only chapter one, but the Book of Exodus which tells us God created in six literal days. It also renders God evil because no one would look at death and call it good. But the Bible says after God was done creating He called His creation good. It also nullifies the very purpose for God's promised Holy One who was to come and crush the head of the serpent and bruise His heal in the process. Sin and death entered the world because of Adams transgression, not before his transgression according to other texts in the Bible. Position 2 also conflicts with Jesus who seemed to agree with position 1 and told us in the "beginning" God made the man and the woman.

None of these problems exist with position one because that position is the only one that makes the best sense and harmonizes with the rest of the entire scripture.

 

[BradB]

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.

Friend you could say it was formed by leprechauns doing an Irish tap dance in an ink factory but without showing that's how its authors and audience intended and took it, it is just your own invention. In my previous post I have demonstrated how the other people of God took the text and it is not taken to be a different account. Period.

 

[doubtingmerle]

For starters the second position puts the Bible in opposition with itself. In the second position chapter 2 is considered to also be an order of creation however it obviously is not in the same order as the first chapter. This would render the book of Genesis a waste of paper.

Ah, so you will ignore the fact that Gen 2:16-19 says man came before animals, because then you would have a contradiction?

Since the Bible frequently contradicts, you must find yourself ignoring much of it, huh?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Friend you could say it was formed by leprechauns doing an Irish tap dance in an ink factory but without showing that's how its authors and audience intended and took it, it is just your own invention.

Uh no, it is not just my invention that the books of Moses intermixed writings with different styles all combined together. This has been known by scholars for a long time.

For instance genesis 1 attributes creation to the Hebrew God El ( translated God). Beginning at 2:4 creation is attributed to the Hebrew God Yahweh ( translated LORD) . Gen 2:4 is a clear divide between the two sources. The editors simply appended documents together.

See Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia

 

[Speedwell]

For starters the second position puts the Bible in opposition with itself.

The single text position makes it worse. If there are any inconsistencies between the two chapters, assuming a single text with a single author requires that they be explained. If you assume two texts by two different authors then the inconsistencies can be ignored.

In the second position chapter 2 is considered to also be an order of creation however it obviously is not in the same order as the first chapter.

The second (two-text) position does not require Gen 2 to be an "order of creation."

That of course would render the entire gospel meaningless because Jesus said the key to believing in Him is first believing in the writings of Moses.

Right. But "believing" does not necessarily equate to "insisting that they are written as 100% literal accurate history."

The second position is often used by some to claim that God created over long eras of time rather than 6 literal 24 hour days which of course also conflicts with not only chapter one, but the Book of Exodus which tells us God created in six literal days.

I don't hold with day-age theories either, but that Ex 20:11 argument is long since busted; you should give it up

It also renders God evil because no one would look at death and call it good. But the Bible says after God was done creating He called His creation good.

So you not only take it upon yourself to dictate to God what kinds of texts he is allowed to inspire, now you are telling him what He must consider to be good?

It also nullifies the very purpose for God's promised Holy One who was to come and crush the head of the serpent and bruise His heal in the process. Sin and death entered the world because of Adams transgression, not before his transgression according to other texts in the Bible. Position 2 also conflicts with Jesus who seemed to agree with position 1 and told us in the "beginning" God made the man and the woman.

The "Jesus and Paul quoted Genesis" argument fails equally with both the one-text and two-text position. Sin and death entered the world with the knowledge of good and evil, which we possess whether we acquired it lterally as described in Gen 2 or in some other way. Without that knowledge there is no death--which requires the awareness of our mortality it gives us--merely the cessation of life.

 

[BradB]

Ah, so you will ignore the fact that Gen 2:16-19 says man came before animals, because then you would have a contradiction?

Since the Bible frequently contradicts, you must find yourself ignoring much of it, huh?

I'm not sure I'm seeing what it is you are reading that says He created man before animals. Here's what the passage you quoted says exactly within its context.

Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it.
And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. -Genesis 2:15-22
​

The point of the passage is not to provide us with an order but rather to emphasize that God formed the animals and man from the ground but the woman He formed from the bone and flesh of the man. In chapter one we know that is a chronological order because of the use of the adverb "then" over and over.

​

 

[doubtingmerle]

I'm not sure I'm seeing what it is you are reading that says He created man before animals. Here's what the passage you quoted says exactly within its context.

Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it.
And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. -Genesis 2:15-22
​

The point of the passage is not to provide us with an order but rather to emphasize that God formed the animals and man from the ground but the woman He formed from the bone and flesh of the man. In chapter one we know that is a chronological order because of the use of the adverb "then" over and over.

​

What do you mean it is not in order? You just quoted a story. You can't just simply rearrange the order of events in a story at will to avoid a contradiction.

How do you know your point is the only point? It couldn't be much clearer. Adam needed help so God created all the animals for him, then Eve.

 

[BradB]

Uh no, it is not just my invention that the books of Moses intermixed writings with different styles all combined together. This has been known by scholars for a long time.

For instance genesis 1 attributes creation to the Hebrew God El ( translated God). Beginning at 2:4 creation is attributed to the Hebrew God Yahweh ( translated LORD) . Gen 2:4 is a clear divide between the two sources. The editors simply appended documents together.

See Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia

Well it's easy for the inventors of the DH to deny Mosaic authorship. All they had to do was ignore all of the evidence that supports it. But is that fair scholarship? Too bad for them the biblical evidence is overwhelmingly against them. Many biblical passages point to Moses as the sole author. Exodus 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Numbers 33:1–2; Deuteronomy 31:9–11. Joshua 1:8; 8:31–32; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 13:1; Daniel 9:11–13; Malachi 4:4.Matthew 19:8; John 5:45–47; 7:19; Acts 3:22; Romans 10:5; Mark 12:26, John 7:22 and Acts 15:1.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Well it's easy for the inventors of the DH to deny Mosaic authorship. All they had to do was ignore all of the evidence that supports it. But is that fair scholarship? Too bad for them the biblical evidence is overwhelmingly against them. Many biblical passages point to Moses as the sole author. Exodus 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Numbers 33:1–2; Deuteronomy 31:9–11. Joshua 1:8; 8:31–32; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 13:1; Daniel 9:11–13; Malachi 4:4.Matthew 19:8; John 5:45–47; 7:19; Acts 3:22; Romans 10:5; Mark 12:26, John 7:22 and Acts 15:1.

Understood, a lot of the ancients thought Moses wrote it, but analysis shows different styles that contradict. The best explanation is that there were multiple sources.

Very few Christians think Moses wrote it all. After all, it does include the story of his death. Do you think Moses wrote the story of his death?

 

[BradB]

What do you mean it is not in order? You just quoted a story. You can't just simply rearrange the order of events in a story at will to avoid a contradiction.

How do you know your point is the only point? It couldn't be much clearer. Adam needed help so God created all the animals for him, then Eve.

Huh? Here's an overview statement: On my way home from the store today I got mugged by three men.

Here's a parenthetical enlargement statement: one of the three men who mugged me had a gun and demanded I give him all of my cash. Luckily I didn't have very much cash. I spent the majority of my cash putting clothes in layaway at the store.

The first statement just tells you the order of events I went to the store and then I got mugged. The second statement gives you details of the first statement. It tells you what the muggers did and then it tells you why I didn't have any cash because I spent it at the store. It doesn't conflict with the first statement even though I mentioned spending my cash at the store after being mugged. What's so hard about that to understand?

 

[BradB]

Understood, a lot of the ancients thought Moses wrote it, but analysis shows different styles that contradict. The best explanation is that there were multiple sources.

Very few Christians think Moses wrote it all. After all, it does include the story of his death. Do you think Moses wrote the story of his death?

And herein lies the problem that you have to wrestle with. Jesus can easily be demonstrated to be God manifest in the flesh. He predicted he would die and Rise three days later and he followed through with that prediction. He also supported the Mosaic authorship of the first five books of the Bible. So the question you have to wrestle with was Jesus God or not? Keep in mind the resurrection of Christ is one of the most easily supported Supernatural events of History. The testimony of the Gospels being transmitted to us from the original authors can't be shaken. The testimony of the claims made by the Gospels are supported by the martyrs deaths. These are not people who just died for a Cause like terrorist who fly planes into buildings. But these were people who claim to actually have seen him alive after he was crucified. There's one thing I'm sure of and that's martyrs make the worst Liars. So friend the real question here is not did Moses write Genesis but the real question is who do you say that Jesus is?

 

[Speedwell]

Huh? Here's an overview statement: On my way home from the store today I got mugged by three men.

Here's a parenthetical enlargement statement: one of the three men who mugged me had a gun and demanded I give him all of my cash. Luckily I didn't have very much cash. I spent the majority of my cash putting clothes in layaway at the store.

The first statement just tells you the order of events I went to the store and then I got mugged. The second statement gives you details of the first statement. It tells you what the muggers did and then it tells you why I didn't have any cash because I spent it at the store. It doesn't conflict with the first statement even though I mentioned spending my cash at the store after being mugged. What's so hard about that to understand?

It's not hard to understand. Most of us have been around creationists long enough to be familiar with that interpretation. What's hard is for you to convince us that it is the only possible interpretation.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

God.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

But it isn't pure evil. It is what we call "necessary evil."

What is a "necessary evil.", why do we need it and is it in heaven?

 

[KWCrazy]

It's not hard to understand. Most of us have been around creationists long enough to be familiar with that interpretation.

Jesus is a Creationist.
He told us that from the beginning God created Adam and Eve.
He quoted from the Scriptures extensively and never refuted a word of Genesis.
He told us to trust in every word that comes from the mouth of God.
He is not deceived. He is the son of God.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

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.

No, it isn't. The only legitimate study I know of that indicates the unreliability of counting layers more than 50,000 years is one of old-fashioned sight. These days because of improvements in science and technology, we have quite a number of actually reliable and perfectly repeatable methods to count layers in ice cores - I take it you didn't even clickie on @doubtingmerle 's handily provided link on ice core dating basics?

See Ice Core Dating.

Perhaps you should first start by understanding the actual science you're going to ignore? Or at the very least, Let's see your evidence that allegedly shows that ice core dating can't be relied on?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

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

< shrugs > Well, Adam and Havah when living in the Garden were in Paradise on Earth, naturally !
YHWH Created it so. --- very beautiful , extravagantly GENEROUS for all mankind...

Whether it was 'continued' by or with such water canopy refracting light just right for the fallen scientists examinations or not, which is likely as YHWH might well have created it that way, but I won't lose any sleep over this !

Thanks for you answers so far !

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks for you answers so far !

My pleasure!

And have a VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS!

 

[doubtingmerle]

It doesn't conflict with the first statement even though I mentioned spending my cash at the store after being mugged. What's so hard about that to understand?

The part that is hard to understand is that this matches the structure of gen 2. Genesis 2 is clearly a sequential story.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So friend the real question here is not did Moses write Genesis but the real question is who do you say that Jesus is?

A myth.

See Did Jesus Exist?

 

[46AND2]

In that light, look at it this way:

God didn't create Satan, He created Lucifer.

Who he knew would become Satan...not sure how that changes anything.