GodSaves said:
Lets look at Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2 and look at these so called two creation accounts. I am using a KJV Bible.
In Genesis 1:11, "...grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."
In Genesis 1:27 "...God created man in His own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female."
In Genesis 2:5-6 "...And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."
In Genesis 2:8-25, is about man being created, the Garden of Eden being created and what is in it, and all the LORD told man.
First off, in Genesis chapter 1 plants were created before man. Genesis chapter 2 plants were created before man. No contradiction. The LORD watered the ground so the plants would grow in chapter 2 before man was created. Still no contradiction compared to chapter 1. What takes place in chapter 2 is a more indepth discussion of how God created man and the Garden of Eden, and what God told man.
I suppose some have never read a summary then an indepth discussion on the summary? Present on this thread what you call contradictions in chapter 1 and 2.
Let's
As you stated, in Chapter 1, Man comes after the plants, BUT
let's look at chapter two again:
5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground-trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food.
from the NIV
Perhaps more clearly without all the Old English
Here we clearly see that the reason God did not create plants before man was because there was no one to work it--Man had not yet been created. After God puts man in teh Garden, he makes all kinds of trees--but in Chapter 1, the trees came first--contradiction shown--don't you believe it literaly?
From what do you base your assertion that verse 8 begins something different? Just looking at it, it appears to be a continuation of verse 7...and the man became a living being. Now the lord God had planted a Garden in the east--again, notice after man is created. To assume that it is a clarification of an earlier account would be reading into the scripture what is not there--that would seem to indicate that it's maybe not so simple as you implied earlier?
GodSaves said:
Also, show where figure of speech or symbolism is used so that we know to read it non-literally. Honestly answer, if science had not come about would you look at the world and believe the same, or would you trust God and His Word to not be misleading or hidden in code?
We know to read it non-literally because the actual creation--that which is created by God--the earth and the universe itself bear witness. Honestly, you're absolutely right--had science not come about, I would probably not believe this--just as I wouldn't believe the earth was round or that the earth moves around the sun--I would still take those passages literally, too. Becasue science proved long before you were born, and the Christian community came around to changing their fundamental beliefs, you grew up to understand that when the Bible says things about the earth being the center of the universe or the sun moving around the earth, or the pillars that hold up the earth--or any of that--you knew and accept that it is not literal--it is a metaphor--why? Because science proved it long ago.
GodSaves said:
Also, everytime a parable, figure of speech is used it is revealed later in the Bible of its meaning, so point out the meaning of Genesis using scripture if it is not to be taken literally.
Are you sure about that? Take for example this:
From the Psalms:
6 Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains,
your justice like the great deep.
O LORD , you preserve both man and beast.
7 How priceless is your unfailing love!
Both high and low among men
find refuge in the shadow of your wings.
8 They feast on the abundance of your house;
you give them drink from your river of delights (Psalm 36:6-8)
Where does the Bible come back
later and explain that God doesn't really have wings?
The meaning of the Genesis account is to show that God created man and woman and plants and animals. That before any of that existed, He was already there. That Man and Woman were created with a responsiblity to care for God's creation. That Man and Woman were created with the intent to fellowship with God....there are many wonderful meanings
GodSaves said:
Also explain why Jesus Christ Himself gave credibility to the creation story.
For the same reason that God, His father did--the creation story was there for a reason--Jesus knew then and I'm sure he knows now that the how is inconsequential, it's the who and the why that matter
GodSaves said:
Also, explain why Paul told everyone that God made it plain to us so we would all be without excuse, if Genesis is as you express written non-literally.
I have already addressed this, I find it very plain and simple to believe what I do, so no explaination required. Also, I have never, no never said Genesis is written non-literally. I've been discussing the creation accounts in the first two chapters of Genesis.
GodSaves said:
Also, tell us how anyone before evolution understood the world's creation.
The same way people understood the nature of the solar system before GAlileo--mistakenly, literally, does this mean we should deny that this part could--just could be non-literal?
GodSaves said:
Also explain why their is archeaological evidence of writings that pagan man also believed this world was created, referring to man as made from mud. Explain why there is written accounts by native americans of a world wide flood.
Do you really want to use archeaological evidence? Isn't that the word of man? Besides, that has nothing to do with this thread. What's wrong with believing God revealed his creation the same to other primitive peoples?
GodSaves said:
Explain why you choose to believe men who refute God's existence over godly men's written account of creation?
Please quit asking me to repeat myself over and over again--re-read earlier posts--I believe God's creation
GodSaves said:
Lastly, I have heard this many times that if you take the Bible literally in Genesis that you are putting your faith in men because men wrote the book.
Yes, I have heard that argument before, but I have never made it. Ask someone who has.
GodSaves said:
Let me ask you then using your own thinking, why would you put your faith in men who said Christ was ressurrected after three days, when science refutes this type of ressurrection? Why do you put your faith in men who tell you that Christ ascended into heaven, when science says with gravity this is impossible? Why do you put your faith in men who tell you that Christ walked on water and calmed the storm, when science says this cannot happen? Why do you believe men who tell you that Christ will come back on a white cloud, when science says this is impossible? Why do you believe men who tell you that Christ brings you salvation, when science says there is no salvation needed?
Since I am assuming that most of you believe what the Bible tells us of these accounts, why then do you not believe what Genesis says about the creation and the flood and believe science instead?
I don't put my faith in men--ever--haven't I said that before? Christ lives in my heart--despite the fact that you question how that is possible. The Spirit testifies to me these things--and I believe them. Science cannot, by the way, say that these things DID NOT happen, they can only say that by the laws of physics and biology, they are not normal happenings. Science cannot speak to salvation--it would be fruitless to try--it cannot be proven--if it could--it wouldn't require faith.
AGain, it is not that I
do not believe what Genesis says about creation--it is
how I believe it. The flood is not part of this thread.
GodSaves said:
Faith is about trust, trust that God is and does as He says.
we are in complete agreement. I never doubted God nor do I lack trust in Him, I feel I may even give Him more faith and credit than creationists--my faith is not limited to a literal interpretation
GodSaves said:
For if you choose to put your faith else where, science, ungodly men, and not God, this can possible hurt your overall faith in the future.
One more time--and this time with feeling--I do not put my faith elsewhere--why is that so difficult for you to hear?
GodSaves said:
I am not saying that belief in these things hurts your salvation but rather your faith, or trust in God.
I am glad you do not question my salvation, please believe me when I tell you my faith is secure--you can stop worrying about it. I've been through 2 years of seminary--if that hasn't rattled my faith, nothing will!
GodSaves said:
Paul even assures us that God did not try to be evasive or hidden to those who seek Him and His Word, but rather He made it plain to us.
already addressed this--it is very plain to me the way I already believe
GodSaves said:
Creation is a testimony of God Himself and His love for us.
Agree with this fully
GodSaves said:
He did not created matter and let it go its merry way and eventually get to creating us billions of years later.
I never said he let it go its merry way.
GodSaves said:
In the meantime death was in the world because things were constantly evolving, changing and dying. But God says death came in with the fall of Adam and Eve.
We'll just have to disagree on that, too--I do not see that physical death came with the fall, but that's another thread, too (one that has been around recently--see my posts there)
GodSaves said:
To believe in evolution is to refute much more then just the creation, but also all the references to creation by many books in the Bible, Jesus' references to creations, Paul's statement of God making it plain to us, and ultimately God, who said death came into the world with the fall of man.
but there is a fundamental flaw in this argument--I do not refute creation or any of those other references (except when death came into the world)--you somehow keep getting that mixed up. I refute your interpretation, but respect your right to hold it. What I really refute is your making so many assumptions about me, even after I've clearly said they are not true.
GodSaves said:
Funny thing is, is there is much archealogical evidence that proves man came suddenly and with intelligence, rather then taking millions of years.
God Bless
Since I do not believe that archealogical evidence proves evolution, why would I believe that? And since you don't believe archaeological evidence, why would you say it?
God bless to you too.
Tommy
