Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
2 different creation stories?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="npetreley" data-source="post: 206152" data-attributes="member: 2651"><p>Huh? You must be reading the TBT (Totally Bogus Translation). Genesis 1:20-21 does not say every living creature is brought from waters. See Genesis 1:20 and 1:24</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Wow, I love this one. According to your level of reading comprehension, there have not been just two creations, but thousands upon thousands of supernatural creations of trees -- perhaps even millions. Because the text reads...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So I guess every time anyone plants a garden, they are supernaturally creating trees all over again from scratch. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Wow. This one is so bizarre that it requires a complete citation of Genesis 2:1-6. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Remember that the way we "format" our Bibles today has nothing to do with the way the original text looked. There were no chapters and verses or neatly formatted paragraphs and headings. So it's unfortunate that some Bibles visibly isolate verse 4 as if it's the heading of another account of genesis. It is clear from the text that follows from verse 5 that this is not another account, but the beginning of the story of Adam. Verse 4 is therefore more likely the "wrap-up" verse of all the preceding information about creation. </p><p></p><p>Regardless, the following text is clearly an exposition for the story of Adam. As part of the story, it explains what the world was like when God created Adam -- there was no rain on the earth until the flood, so the ecosystem was obviously quite different then. </p><p></p><p>To illustrate that this is all about Aadm, I included in brackets the actual Hebrew word that is commonly translated as "the man" -- it's Adam. In fact, it's always Adam. The translators decided when to start using the name Adam instead of "the man", but in the Hebrew it's always the same. Some translations replace "the man" with "Adam" earlier in the translation, some later. I would have started using Adam where I put it above, but the story is the same either way. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's just plain silly. Anyone with a grade school level of reading comprehension can see that verse 19 is simply restating in general terms that God had created beasts, birds, etc. You really have to torture the text to interpret it to mean this is a brand new account, especially when it's encased in the story of Adam and not a separate chronology of creation by itself. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is clearly going to be a waste of time, so I'll stop here. But I must point out that your treatment of the Bible is 100% consistent with your treatment of evolution. You love to post URLs to talkorigins but you almost never post any context or content, because if you posted the content, people would see how silly and unsubstantiated your arguments are. Likewise, you love to post references to chapters and verses when you make misstatements about the Bible, but you don't quote any actual text for precisely the same reason. IMO this is immature and downright dishonest. You folks should know better.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="npetreley, post: 206152, member: 2651"] Huh? You must be reading the TBT (Totally Bogus Translation). Genesis 1:20-21 does not say every living creature is brought from waters. See Genesis 1:20 and 1:24 Wow, I love this one. According to your level of reading comprehension, there have not been just two creations, but thousands upon thousands of supernatural creations of trees -- perhaps even millions. Because the text reads... So I guess every time anyone plants a garden, they are supernaturally creating trees all over again from scratch. Wow. This one is so bizarre that it requires a complete citation of Genesis 2:1-6. Remember that the way we "format" our Bibles today has nothing to do with the way the original text looked. There were no chapters and verses or neatly formatted paragraphs and headings. So it's unfortunate that some Bibles visibly isolate verse 4 as if it's the heading of another account of genesis. It is clear from the text that follows from verse 5 that this is not another account, but the beginning of the story of Adam. Verse 4 is therefore more likely the "wrap-up" verse of all the preceding information about creation. Regardless, the following text is clearly an exposition for the story of Adam. As part of the story, it explains what the world was like when God created Adam -- there was no rain on the earth until the flood, so the ecosystem was obviously quite different then. To illustrate that this is all about Aadm, I included in brackets the actual Hebrew word that is commonly translated as "the man" -- it's Adam. In fact, it's always Adam. The translators decided when to start using the name Adam instead of "the man", but in the Hebrew it's always the same. Some translations replace "the man" with "Adam" earlier in the translation, some later. I would have started using Adam where I put it above, but the story is the same either way. That's just plain silly. Anyone with a grade school level of reading comprehension can see that verse 19 is simply restating in general terms that God had created beasts, birds, etc. You really have to torture the text to interpret it to mean this is a brand new account, especially when it's encased in the story of Adam and not a separate chronology of creation by itself. This is clearly going to be a waste of time, so I'll stop here. But I must point out that your treatment of the Bible is 100% consistent with your treatment of evolution. You love to post URLs to talkorigins but you almost never post any context or content, because if you posted the content, people would see how silly and unsubstantiated your arguments are. Likewise, you love to post references to chapters and verses when you make misstatements about the Bible, but you don't quote any actual text for precisely the same reason. IMO this is immature and downright dishonest. You folks should know better. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
2 different creation stories?
Top
Bottom