Gen 1 in a vacuum

[-57]

Because God ordained the words. If this is true it doesn't matter if it happened, what matters is what God says.

So, Gods going to have Paul write something to Timothy and base a rule on something that never happened?

I am agnostic to what happen, except that God did it so I have no replacement theories for you. I wasn't there so I don't know.

Intresting, you throw out the historical aspect of a verse....claiming it never happened....and have no replacement. OK. Whatever.

 

[DamianWarS]

So, Gods going to have Paul write something to Timothy and base a rule on something that never happened?

He's going to base it on God's word. Nothing else is important.

Intresting, you throw out the historical aspect of a verse....claiming it never happened....and have no replacement. OK. Whatever.

Agnostic doesn't mean throw out, it means "I don't know". I can't actually claim that I don't know and present something to replace it with at the same time.

I admit calling it a non-literal account would suggest I dismiss it as being literal (ie throw it out) but that isn't the case.

I often see people using all kind of theories and between the line information to reconcile the text and this is responsible. If God thought the gap theory was important he would have presented the Gap theory.

What I recognize is it is actually irresponsible to start making up stuff the text cannot support because there is no historical record or Josephus writing down what he observes to help fill in the blanks.

What this leaves us with is the words themselves with no attempts to fix the text because it would be impossible to know how. So in practise the most responsible way to interprete the text is as a non-literal account (even if you think it's literal) because in a non-literal account there may be aspects that don't make sense but it doesn't matter because that's not the point. In a non-literal account the details spoken are the important ones and the details not spoken are irrelevant and contribute nothing to the text. So it is better to find the focus of the text (like what Paul does) then to force it as a literal reading (what Paul doesn't do)

What this leaves is a question "is the text literal?" And the answer is, "it doesn't matter" and this is why I'm agnostic to what happened because knowing what really happen I think misses the point so I would rather say "I don't know"

 

[-57]

He's going to base it on God's word. Nothing else is important.



Agnostic doesn't mean throw out, it means "I don't know". I can't actually claim that I don't know and present something to replace it with at the same time.

I admit calling it a non-literal account would suggest I dismiss it as being literal (ie throw it out) but that isn't the case.

I often see people using all kind of theories and between the line information to reconcile the text and this is responsible. If God thought the gap theory was important he would have presented the Gap theory.

What I recognize is it is actually irresponsible to start making up stuff the text cannot support because there is no historical record or Josephus writing down what he observes to help fill in the blanks.

What this leaves us with is the words themselves with no attempts to fix the text because it would be impossible to know how. So in practise the most responsible way to interprete the text is as a non-literal account (even if you think it's literal) because in a non-literal account there may be aspects that don't make sense but it doesn't matter because that's not the point. In a non-literal account the details spoken are the important ones and the details not spoken are irrelevant and contribute nothing to the text. So it is better to find the focus of the text (like what Paul does) then to force it as a literal reading (what Paul doesn't do)

What this leaves is a question "is the text literal?" And the answer is, "it doesn't matter" and this is why I'm agnostic to what happened because knowing what really happen I think misses the point so I would rather say "I don't know"

There is no reason to present Genesis as non-literal.

The one thing someone shouldn't do is call it non-literal because in doing so they discredit the fall of Adam, original sin and our resulting sin nature.
The bible tells us exactly what happened. When you insert Old Earth or even evolution between the lines you have no biblical explanation for the reason as to why we need Jesus christ to die on the cross in our place.

 

[JacksBratt]

There is no reason to present Genesis as non-literal.

The one thing someone shouldn't do is call it non-literal because in doing so they discredit the fall of Adam, original sin and our resulting sin nature.
The bible tells us exactly what happened. When you insert Old Earth or even evolution between the lines you have no biblical explanation for the reason as to why we need Jesus christ to die on the cross in our place.

I agree 100%.

However, I find that there are Christian's that call it allegorical. To me, this is just a method of sitting on the fence.

They take the NT as literal. Including all the supernatural things that Jesus did, the events of His life and the prophesies that He fulfilled.. but degrade the book of Genesis to "poetry" in order to line up with the words of mere men.

I have come to the conclusion that they would hold the entire gospel and it's supernatural events as "poetry" too..... except their eternal life depends on it being truth.

 

[Ronald]

can you give me some biblical examples of this style? Hebraic block logic may also have two opposing thoughts side by side that creates a tension. This tension is meant to be left unanswered and simply exist in tension.

The end of the Bible has the same style. Rev. 1 gives us an outline, the details are given in the following chapters. But we can also see the first 8 verses as an introduction, then John fills in the details starting with verse 9-19. Then chapter 2 starts the details about the letters mentiined in verse 11 in chapter 1.
I think chapters 4-18 in Revelation show us different vantage points, seals which outline the Great Tribulation, then details added in the Trumpets and the Bowls. REV. 7 introduces us to the 144k, then later on in chapter 14, more details about them.

Does Genesis Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 Contain Contradictory Accounts of Creation?

 

[DamianWarS]

There is no reason to present Genesis as non-literal.

The one thing someone shouldn't do is call it non-literal because in doing so they discredit the fall of Adam, original sin and our resulting sin nature.
The bible tells us exactly what happened. When you insert Old Earth or even evolution between the lines you have no biblical explanation for the reason as to why we need Jesus christ to die on the cross in our place.

I'm not inserting old earth or evolution in between the lines (I thought I was clear about that). The biblical explanation for our need for Christ is still the fall because the fall is still biblical, however, our need for Christ is not dependant upon the fall it is exposed by the fall. To say pre-fall Adam didn't need God is absurd and tantamount to calling him a god himself. a pristine white sheet of paper burns just as quick as a soiled and tattered one when exposed to fire and the same is with Man and God. We need justification from God in order to commune with him simply because we are not God.

 

[DamianWarS]

The end of the Bible has the same style. Rev. 1 gives us an outline, the details are given in the following chapters. But we can also see the first 8 verses as an introduction, then John fills in the details starting with verse 9-19. Then chapter 2 starts the details about the letters mentiined in verse 11 in chapter 1.
I think chapters 4-18 in Revelation show us different vantage points, seals which outline the Great Tribulation, then details added in the Trumpets and the Bowls. REV. 7 introduces us to the 144k, then later on in chapter 14, more details about them.

Does Genesis Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 Contain Contradictory Accounts of Creation?

Revelation is an allegory and its unfolding style is part of the allegory (it also isn't a Hebrew text). Are you saying the creation and the fall are an allegory?

Your source from blueletterbible doesn't actually talk about the contradictions it only says platitudes like if you study closer then they are not there but it fails to go into any details and stays at a very broad level. It works as an introduction to a more exhaustive study but standing alone has little substance. If it's worth a discussion we can't just stay at a surface level and refuse to go through these tensions the text presents.

 

[Ronald]

.

 

[DamianWarS]

@Ronald, I am a Nicene Christan (actually a Chalcedonian Christian) as is implicit in the participation of this Christian only part of CF and require in CF rules. Using a name for Christ that Muslims identify with doesn't make me a Muslim nor means I subscribe to the values of Islam. I invite you to participate in this thread with integrity rather than throwing out red herrings or seeking to discredit me. None of this I might add actually contributes to the discussion or proves anything except the inappropriate lengths that you will go which causes me to question your character. I don't like this, so please redeem yourself and get back to the discussion at hand.

 

[Ronald]

.

 

[d taylor]

if they are different accounts one is built up using days and the other is not so there is no need to speak of days in Gen 2. In the Gen 1 account Day 3 plants are created and would appear to be in full bloom, seed, fruit etc... the order of plants here probably is important because many creatures depend on them for food such as birds and fish (day 5) and insects and many other land animals (day 6). If there were no plants because the rain hasn't come yet or because they weren't tilled yet this would present a problem for the creatures that depend on plants to survive. many insects have a very short life cycle and wouldn't survive the wait. But if these are two separate accounts there really is no conflict because they are not meant to be reconciled together and just stand as separate accounts of a creation both with a different focus.

You will never see the truth of the creation account until you get the science blinders out of your eyes.
Man also can not walk on water but there is an account of two men walking on water. Want to explain that from science, like you are trying to disprove the Bible account of creation by saying the Bible is giving two conflicting accounts of the creation order.

Basing your reason on that animals, bugs etc. needed the plants to survive that sure seems like an statement that would come from a person looking at this from a scientific point of view. Instead of a faith based point/view, that no one was there and science has no place in offering explanations in matters of faith situations. Which the Bible is a book of faith, being that all events are past events (except future prophecies) and no one alive now, was at any of these recorded accounts in the Bible.
So really are you only proving that you do not study the Bible. By only using the Bible to help you prove all things Biblically. But bring in views from out side of the Bible that can cloud your faith and understanding and end up usually resorting to the metaphorical/allegorical approach. That allows one to say i am a christian, i believe in Jesus, but.


The creation account in Genesis 1 with God creating. The account in Genesis 2 is not even touching on creation, the main focus of 2 is The Garden of Eden which has nothing to do with the six days of restoration/creation for man.

 

[DamianWarS]

I would suggest removing "follower of Jesus is Islam", it's deceptive.

I don't say "Jesus is Islam". I belong to a community of believers and read a translation of the Bible that uses the name Isa. I have an identity with Christ connected to this name and I will continue to use this name regardless what you think it is limited to. Islam does not command the word nor do they own it. This is the last time I will comment on this, participate in the thread or start your own regarding this topic and I will be happy to join.

 

[DamianWarS]

I agree 100%.

However, I find that there are Christian's that call it allegorical. To me, this is just a method of sitting on the fence.

They take the NT as literal. Including all the supernatural things that Jesus did, the events of His life and the prophesies that He fulfilled.. but degrade the book of Genesis to "poetry" in order to line up with the words of mere men.

I have come to the conclusion that they would hold the entire gospel and it's supernatural events as "poetry" too..... except their eternal life depends on it being truth.

pre-abrahamic accounts and Christ accounts are very different. If we are to accept that Moses penned these words post-exodus it puts him about 1000 years (the flood) to 2500 years (creation) removed from them and given to a people who had very little understanding of God heavily influenced by surrounding pagan cultures to such a degree that an entire generation had to die off in the desert to cleanse the paganism.

That would be like writing down the gospels, or anything to do with Christ, for the first time ever today, 2000 years removed from Christ. God keeps the balance of course but there is no reason why the pre-abrahamic accounts need to be literal and if we say God can do it in 6 days than can we also not say he can do it in non-literal accounts?

 

[DamianWarS]

You will never see the truth of the creation account until you get the science blinders out of your eyes.
Man also can not walk on water but there is an account of two men walking on water. Want to explain that from science, like you are trying to disprove the Bible account of creation by saying the Bible is giving two conflicting accounts of the creation order.

Basing your reason on that animals, bugs etc. needed the plants to survive that sure seems like an statement that would come from a person looking at this from a scientific point of view. Instead of a faith based point/view, that no one was there and science has no place in offering explanations in matters of faith situations. Which the Bible is a book of faith, being that all events are past events (except future prophecies) and no one alive now, was at any of these recorded accounts in the Bible.
So really are you only proving that you do not study the Bible. By only using the Bible to help you prove all things Biblically. But bring in views from out side of the Bible that can cloud your faith and understanding and end up usually resorting to the metaphorical/allegorical approach. That allows one to say i am a christian, i believe in Jesus, but.


The creation account in Genesis 1 with God creating. The account in Genesis 2 is not even touching on creation, the main focus of 2 is The Garden of Eden which has nothing to do with the six days of restoration/creation for man.

I don't look at it from a scientific perspective but I also recognize in a literal vacuum there is a lot of problems that cannot be logically reconciled (that you are calling a scientific perspective). But when the accounts are looked at as non-literal there are no problems. Each word is perfect and there is no disorder or need to reconcile them. Both accounts present truth and have a different focus and this is an important part of the accounts. How they are reconciled with science or if they are literal is not the point

 

[Ronald]

I don't say "Jesus is Islam". I belong to a commun3ity of believers and read a translation of the Bible that uses the name Isa. I have an identity with Christ connected to this name and I will continue to use this name regardless what you think it is limited to. Islam does not command the word nor do they own it. This is the last time I will comment on this, participate in the thread or start your own regarding this topic and I will be happy to join.

It is an Islamic/Arabic term for Jesus, but again the Qur'an has an inaccurate view of Jesus. I apologize that I assumed you accepted the Islamic view of Jesus.
I'm also losing interested in defending GOD's WORD with someone who apparently believes is conflicting!
You actually believe God gave us two conflicting stories of creation, therefore you think either God was wrong, the Genesis account itself is not reliable or we aren't to take it literally at all. Even if it was an allegory, which you claim Revelation is as well, why would God give us a conflicting one?

Doubting and challenging the Genesis account is an attempt to distort or misdirect the meaning of our origins. This is what evolutionists do and they have managed to even confuse half of the Christians into believing in some combination of the two views.
When you are confused and doubt the beginings, then the whole foundation becomes fragile and starts wobbling. Once you adhere to a non-literal Genesis, then you can easily say that about anything else in scripture, doubting other historical events, prophecies, even the nature of God.
So as some doubt the Creation account, they then pick apart crucial doctrines, even to the point of rendering the whole Bible as myth, or at best symbolic. True believers don't pick and choose the scripture that works for them, their life style and discard the rest, they believe it all, whether they understand or not. And they believe there are NO Contradictions or conflicts that cannot be resolved.

When I first became a Christian, I started with the New Testament first because I couldn't swallow some of the stories in the Old Testament. But as I grew in knowledge, I understood that if there was a problem with the reliability of scripture, especially the Genesis account, Jesus would have corrected it. He didn't have a problem with it. My faith in Him confirmed the rest of the Bible for me. Many doubts and misunderstandings are normal in the beginning of our Christian walk, but in time they are answered. We must not doubt scripture, just know that we cannot fully understand all of it. We see dimly.
Don't judge the Genesis account as being conflicting, judge yourself as unable to grasp it. This is just a question for you: Are you born again? If you have been baptized the Holy Spirit, He will give you discernment - in time.
JOHN 3:3

 

[DamianWarS]

I googled "Isa Al Masih" and it defined it as meaning Jesus is Islam, which is false!
I'm also losing interested in defending GOD's WORD with someone who apparently believes is conflicting!
You actually believe God gave us two conflicting stories of creation, therefore you think either God was wrong, the Genesis account itself is not reliable or we aren't to take it literally at all. Even if it was an allegory, which you claim Revelation is as well, why would God give us a conflicting one?

Doubting and challenging the Genesis account is an attempt to distort or misdirect the meaning of our origins. This is what evolutionists do and they have managed to even confuse half of the Christians into believing in some combination of the two views.
When you are confused and doubt the beginings, then the whole foundation becomes fragile and starts wobbling. Once you adhere to a non-literal Genesis, then you can easily say that about anything else in scripture, doubting other historical events, prophecies, even the nature of God.
So as some doubt the Creation account, they then pick apart crucial doctrines, even to the point of rendering the whole Bible as myth, or at best symbolic. True believers don't pick and choose the scripture that works for them, their life style and discard the rest, they believe it all, whether they understand or not. And they believe there are NO Contradictions or conflicts that cannot be resolved.

When I first became a Christian, I started with the New Testament first because I couldn't swallow some of the stories in the Old Testament. But as I grew in knowledge, I understood that if there was a problem with the reliability of scripture, especially the Genesis account, Jesus would have corrected it. He didn't have a problem with it. My faith in Him confirmed the rest of the Bible for me. Many doubts and misunderstandings are normal in the beginning of our Christian walk, but in time they are answered. We must not doubt scripture, just know that we cannot fully understand all of it. We see dimly.
Don't judge the Genesis account as being conflicting, judge yourself as unable to grasp it. This is just a question for you: Are you born again? If you have been baptized the Holy Spirit, He will give you discernment - in time.
JOHN 3:3

"Isa Al Masih" means Jesus the Messiah, it does not mean Jesus is Islam. to say "follower of Jesus is Islam" doesn't even make grammatical sense. read Mat 1:1, my translation says "Isa Al-Masih". Isa = Jesus, Al = the, Masih = Messiah. it's not difficult.

pre-abrahamic accounts are very different than the rest of the biblical accounts, for starters if Moses is said to have written them this would put the flood about 1000 years removed from him and creation 2500 years removed from him. Post-exodus it is clear the Hebrews had a very poor understanding of God and quickly gave into pagan ways and this is the backdrop that Moses delivers these accounts and they are analogous to surrounding cultures' accounts of the same that predate Moses. These are the conditions unique to the pre-Abrahamic accounts not to Abrahamic accounts or beyond. So no need to worry, the baby is not being thrown out with the bath water.

God may redeem any account he wishes and use it for his glory and to spread his message of salvation. in practice, these accounts should be interpreted the same as non-literal accounts are (even if you think they are literal), in that only the details listed are important and no other details matter. because of this and the surrounding issues presented with the accounts, they point to non-literal accounts.

This doesn't seek to replace it with any other position, it doesn't seek to remove God from the equation nor does it remove the truth from the accounts. oral cultures like the ancient Hebrews spoke in stories like these and a non-literal account simply fits; it doesn't create any conflicts or demand the need to reconcile them with odd information the text can't support still maintaining the truth presented in them.

 

[JacksBratt]

pre-abrahamic accounts and Christ accounts are very different. If we are to accept that Moses penned these words post-exodus it puts him about 1000 years (the flood) to 2500 years (creation) removed from them and given to a people who had very little understanding of God heavily influenced by surrounding pagan cultures to such a degree that an entire generation had to die off in the desert to cleanse the paganism.

That would be like writing down the gospels, or anything to do with Christ, for the first time ever today, 2000 years removed from Christ. God keeps the balance of course but there is no reason why the pre-abrahamic accounts need to be literal and if we say God can do it in 6 days than can we also not say he can do it in non-literal accounts?

I understand you thinking... However, what most people fail to take into account is the simple fact that due to the very long lives of those pre flood..... Adam knew Methuselah..... That puts Noah's account of creation as only the second hand knowledge. Then, add to that the fact that Noah's sons knew Abraham.... the gap in actual knowledge of the creation account is tiny.

People have always been influenced by pagan culture... Moses was in direct conversation with God on a couple of occasions... I'm pretty sure he had a solid grasp on what he was writing.

In this respect, the gospel and the OT are equally valid as far as factual truth....

 

[Ronald]

"Isa Al Masih" means Jesus the Messiah, it does not mean Jesus is Islam. to say "follower of Jesus is Islam" doesn't even make grammatical sense. read Mat 1:1, my translation says "Isa Al-Masih". Isa = Jesus, Al = the, Masih = Messiah. it's not difficult.

My mistake, I erased my posts, I read it wrong and gee, I must be an Islamophobe ... anything related to that I jump to conclusions. So it's Arabic, unrelated to the view the Quran has of Jesus, good.

pre-abrahamic accounts are very different than the rest of the biblical accounts, for starters if Moses is said to have written them this would put the flood about 1000 years removed from him and creation 2500 years removed from him. Post-exodus it is clear the Hebrews had a very poor understanding of God and quickly gave into pagan ways and this is the backdrop that Moses delivers these accounts and they are analogous to surrounding cultures' accounts of the same that predate Moses. These are the conditions unique to the pre-Abrahamic accounts not to Abrahamic accounts or beyond. So no need to worry, the baby is not being thrown out with the bath water.

Well, I don't think Moses was influenced by his former pagan ways, since he became enlightened. He gave us God's Word, unadulterated, uncorrupted, pure ... no dirty bath water! And this is what you question, doubt. I for one, believe in the YEC view, so the dates line up.

 

[DamianWarS]

I understand you thinking... However, what most people fail to take into account is the simple fact that due to the very long lives of those pre flood..... Adam knew Methuselah..... That puts Noah's account of creation as only the second hand knowledge. Then, add to that the fact that Noah's sons knew Abraham.... the gap in actual knowledge of the creation account is tiny.

People have always been influenced by pagan culture... Moses was in direct conversation with God on a couple of occasions... I'm pretty sure he had a solid grasp on what he was writing.

In this respect, the gospel and the OT are equally valid as far as factual truth....

My mistake, I erased my posts, I read it wrong and gee, I must be an Islamophobe ... anything related to that I jump to conclusions. So it's Arabic, unrelated to the view the Quran has of Jesus, good.


Well, I don't think Moses was influenced by his former pagan ways, since he became enlightened. He gave us God's Word, unadulterated, uncorrupted, pure ... no dirty bath water! And this is what you question, doubt. I for one, believe in the YEC view, so the dates line up.

I didn't say Moses made it up. The accounts are ordained by God and are no less inspired than the rest of scripture. Scripture does not say who interacted with who in relation to Adam, Methuselah etc..., so there is a bit of an assumption in here to say Moses's sons (assuming Shem) knew Abraham and had a pure account of creation. I can make assumptions too... Methuselah died the exact same year of the flood and his name even has an apocalyptic meaning. One could argue he died as a part of the judgment and was not spared so would not be a good steward of the faith to pass on to Noah. But scripture doesn't support this does it... so let's keep to what scripture actually does support rather than read in between the lines. And, of course, what of Abraham to Moses or is that 300-400-year gap not important?

I think it is most responsible to say that Moses didn't receive the account from his fathers and them from their fathers but rather from God himself. God has authority over all things, even worldly accounts, and he can shape and mould them however he wishes to give himself glory. Is he not able? Why is it I have no faith because I don't accept a strict literal view but the same can't be said to you when you can't see God being able to work through non-literal accounts and carry the impact and truth he desires for his glory?

 

[JacksBratt]

I didn't say Moses made it up. The accounts are ordained by God and are no less inspired than the rest of scripture. Scripture does not say who interacted with who in relation to Adam, Methuselah etc..., so there is a bit of an assumption in here to say Moses's sons (assuming Shem) knew Abraham and had a pure account of creation. I can make assumptions too... Methuselah died the exact same year of the flood and his name even has an apocalyptic meaning. One could argue he died as a part of the judgment and was not spared so would not be a good steward of the faith to pass on to Noah. But scripture doesn't support this does it... so let's keep to what scripture actually does support rather than read in between the lines. And, of course, what of Abraham to Moses or is that 300-400-year gap not important?

I think it is most responsible to say that Moses didn't receive the account from his fathers and them from their fathers but rather from God himself. God has authority over all things, even worldly accounts, and he can shape and mould them however he wishes to give himself glory. Is he not able? Why is it I have no faith because I don't accept a strict literal view but the same can't be said to you when you can't see God being able to work through non-literal accounts and carry the impact and truth he desires for his glory?

I understand your train of thought... However, what I am saying is that the creation event was very well known and was not "folklore" by any means... Kinda like the stories of WWII are not debated... nor should the creation account be.