Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[BCP1928]

Because Gen 2 is a rehash of what was already done, giving extra details - not a different account

If it's a rehash then by definition it's a separate account. Otherwise Gen 1 and Gen 2 would be identical.

 

[truthpls]

Then show it! Anyone can say anything online, right?

You want me to draw you a picture of the bible?

You're just dodging. You say you have a better way? Show it.

I guess you actually need it so here it is

Otherwise, you're just that little kid on the sidelines, talking smack about how much better your game is than everyone else's, but never getting in the game.

IOW, so far you're just all talk.

No attempts no matter how elaborate at knowing where it all came from can or will work using the naturalonly paradigm. Don't look for a better naturalonlydunnit scenario. Flush

 

[truthpls]

If it's a rehash then by definition it's a separate account. Otherwise Gen 1 and Gen 2 would be identical.

No, not if I wanted to bring out details of certain things already done and that was the point. Then I would not offer it as some day by day, morning and evening by morning and evening in created order account. Looking at chapter 2 that way is sure to utterly confuse someone.

 

[truthpls]

I take it you don't think Adam wrote the first two chapters of the Bible?

Interesting thought. I would not be surprised at all if Adam did relay the account and it was recorded and passed down to Moses from God later.

 

[BCP1928]

No, not if I wanted to bring out details of certain things already done and that was the point. Then I would not offer it as some day by day, morning and evening by morning and evening in created order account. Looking at chapter 2 that way is sure to utterly confuse someone.

Yes, in effect you would structure the second account differently from the first to bring out particular details. Two different accounts.

 

[truthpls]

Yes, in effect you would structure the second account differently from the first to bring out particular details. Two different accounts.

No, one would not be an account of creation order but a review of what was done based on what I wanted to emphasize or explain better. Not based on what was done first.

 

[River Jordan]

You want me to draw you a picture of the bible?

I guess you actually need it so here it is
View attachment 359234




No attempts no matter how elaborate at knowing where it all came from can or will work using the naturalonly paradigm. Don't look for a better naturalonlydunnit scenario. Flush

So I'll just take this as you admitting that you don't really have a better way to do science or investigate things, and your only intent here is nothing more than to throw rocks at science and scientists.

Anything else?

 

[BCP1928]

No, one would not be an account of creation order but a review of what was done based on what I wanted to emphasize or explain better. Not based on what was done first.

So you agree that they are two different accounts.

 

[BCP1928]

So I'll just take this as you admitting that you don't really have a better way to do science or investigate things, and your only intent here is nothing more than to throw rocks at science and scientists.

Anything else?

I think his main point is that you can't believe in God unless you take Genesis literally.

 

[truthpls]

So I'll just take this as you admitting that you don't really have a better way to do science or investigate things, and your only intent here is nothing more than to throw rocks at science and scientists.

Anything else?

There is no science (natural only) that even relates to the supernatural creation of God. Get over it. That is a bit like saying that if you wanted to learn about how to build a rocket ship to the moon, you should read a cheerio box label. The cereal box does not help and naturalonlydunnit science does not help us learn about creation.

 

[truthpls]

I think his main point is that you can't believe in God unless you take Genesis literally.

No, but part of believing in God is knowing who He is. God and creator.

 

[truthpls]

So you agree that they are two different accounts.

No. There is one account of the creation and exact order, and then chapter two goes back and looks at some things a bit closer. Only chapter one is a complete creation day/sequence order/account. So the things we learn and read about in chapter 2 were already done and finished and some of those things are looked at again in greater detail.

 

[BCP1928]

No, but part of believing in God is knowing who He is. God and creator.

Yet you take the position that we can learn nothing about God by studying His creation.

 

[River Jordan]

I think his main point is that you can't believe in God unless you take Genesis literally.

That may be his opinion, but that's all it is.

 

[River Jordan]

There is no science (natural only) that even relates to the supernatural creation of God. Get over it. That is a bit like saying that if you wanted to learn about how to build a rocket ship to the moon, you should read a cheerio box label. The cereal box does not help and naturalonlydunnit science does not help us learn about creation.

Thanks for your opinions.

 

[BCP1928]

No. There is one account of the creation and exact order, and then chapter two goes back and looks at some things a bit closer. Only chapter one is a complete creation day/sequence order/account. So the things we learn and read about in chapter 2 were already done and finished and some of those things are looked at again in greater detail.

Agreed. But why do you insist upon calling it one account? You have two chapters in a book which you insist on calling one chapter. You must have some reason for doing it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I take it you don't think Adam wrote the first two chapters of the Bible?

I personally don't think Adam existed as a historical person, so I sort of default into the critical category of one who says, "Adam didn't write the first two chapters of the Bible, nor did a Moses need for him to have done so in order to write the first few chapters of Genesis----or to write perhaps whatever proto, more fragmentary version of the Torah he may have actually written before that, and maybe even before other works like the Book of the Wars of the Lord or the Book of Jasher were, themselves, written and used as references .................................................."

 

[AV1611VET]

If it's a rehash then by definition it's a separate account. Otherwise Gen 1 and Gen 2 would be identical.

Genesis 1 & 2 comprise what is called a frame story.

From AI Overview:

Frame narration, also known as a frame story, is a literary technique that involves a main narrative that sets the stage for a secondary narrative or multiple shorter stories. The frame story can help readers understand the secondary narrative, and can lead them from one story to another.

 

[AV1611VET]

I personally don't think Adam existed as a historical person, so I sort of default into the critical category of one who says, "Adam didn't write the first two chapters of the Bible, nor did a Moses need for him to have done so in order to write the first few chapters of Genesis----or to write perhaps whatever proto, more fragmentary version of the Torah he may have actually written before that, and maybe even before other works like the Book of the Wars of the Lord or the Book of Jasher were, themselves, written and used as references .................................................."

From AI Overview:

The Wiseman hypothesis

Also known as the tablet theory, this theory suggests that Moses compiled the Book of Genesis from tablets that were passed down through Abraham and other patriarchs. P. J. Wiseman (1888–1948) first proposed the theory in his 1936 book New discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis. His son, Donald Wiseman, republished the theory in 1985.

Note also toledoths:

The word toledoth appears in the Bible, usually translated as "generations" or "accounts". It appears 10–13 times in Genesis, often at the beginning of a section.

 

[truthpls]

Yet you take the position that we can learn nothing about God by studying His creation.

Once we learn He made it all for us we can consider ourselves well educated. Too bad natural only dunnit learning will never ever get you there.