As AV wrote, if it contradicts the bible, it's wrong.

[Archer93]

Archer, Genesis 1 and 2 are not two different accounts.

• Genesis 1 is a detailed account of the Creation.
• Genesis 2 is a specific account of how Adam got his wife.

When it came time for God to make Eve, God did something unusual: He gave Adam the task of naming the animals, then paraded the animals past him to see what he would call them. Adam saw Mr Gorilla and Mrs Gorilla, Mr Giraffe and Mrs Giraffe, Mr Bear and Mrs Bear, etc.; but where was Mrs Adam? The effect was that it made Adam realize he was alone, and it is then that God put him to sleep and formed Eve from his rib.

Simply look at Genesis 2:19-20 as parenthetical, and the problem clears right up.

Surely, if Adam had been made first, and then the animals, and then Eve, Genesis 1 would have mentioned it? Rather than saying 'animals first, then man and woman together'.
If it had just said 'and then God created all creatures on the earth, including man and woman' and then elaborated on it in the next chapter, I could totally see it as parenthetical, but as it is a very specifc couple of timelines are offered.

And what about the heavens and earth? Gen 1 says it took place over 2 days, Gen 2 over 1.

This seems dreadfully picky, but if the Bible is to be held to be inerrant it must be internally consistant. And if everything that is needed is in the Bible, then you do not need to go outside it to answer questions- no hypotheises, no discussion, nothing.

 

[Chaplain David]

I promise you, for what it's worth, that I do not have any sort of a down on Christianity or God. And I have a high regard for personal gnosis- other people's accounts won't persuade me one way or another by themselves, but then again I don't expect mine to persuade others.

I can accept the bible as God's written word, but not as logos. That, to me, is in the shape of the world itself, still vibrating from that first word. Like a record being cut, or a wax cylinder, and by looking at the markings we can play back at least some of that first Word (Yes, I know, I'm an odd kind of pagan! )

I can't do blind faith. I can't start from a principle of 'X is so, so everything must agree with X, even if all observation says otherwise, because X is so.'
It's a matter of trying to find sense.
My method is science, my aim is religion.

But still, thank you very much for taking the time to reply to me and explaining your standpoint. I do appreciate it.

And thank you for being so kind. What a nice thing to say.

 

[LittleNipper]

Surely, if Adam had been made first, and then the animals, and then Eve, Genesis 1 would have mentioned it? Rather than saying 'animals first, then man and woman together'.
If it had just said 'and then God created all creatures on the earth, including man and woman' and then elaborated on it in the next chapter, I could totally see it as parenthetical, but as it is a very specifc couple of timelines are offered.

And what about the heavens and earth? Gen 1 says it took place over 2 days, Gen 2 over 1.

This seems dreadfully picky, but if the Bible is to be held to be inerrant it must be internally consistant. And if everything that is needed is in the Bible, then you do not need to go outside it to answer questions- no hypotheises, no discussion, nothing.

The Bible does present an outline of FACTS. In Genesis chapter one, GOD presents the exact order of events and the time frame. In chapter two of Genesis, GOD speaks specifically about man and man's special place in GOD's creation. The way the two chapters are presented (and it must be understood that GENESIS orginally had no chapters or verses ---- these came later to help locate quotes/etc.) Genesis proceeds logically for a Middle Eastern mindset as established thousands of years ago. The "Western" mindset of following a timeline came much later. To read the Genesis account and try to fit it according to a "Western" standard is very wrong. The account is very honest. It begins with the entire creation and then it zooms into specifics concerning man. To read the account anyother way is to discredit a very formal way of writing at the dawn of language and literature ---- at the beginning.......

 

[AV1611VET]

Surely, if Adam had been made first, and then the animals, and then Eve, Genesis 1 would have mentioned it?

Adam wasn't made first --- the animals were.

Rather than saying 'animals first, then man and woman together'.

Had it not been for Genesis 2 to further stipulate, we could assume they were created together; but Genesis 2 clearly shows that there was a passage of time before Eve came along.

If it had just said 'and then God created all creatures on the earth, including man and woman' and then elaborated on it in the next chapter, I could totally see it as parenthetical, but as it is a very specifc couple of timelines are offered.

Alrighty.

And what about the heavens and earth? Gen 1 says it took place over 2 days, Gen 2 over 1.

No it doesn't.

In the beginning God created the heaven [singular] and the earth.

Now --- six days later ---

Thus the heavens [plural] and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

This seems dreadfully picky, but if the Bible is to be held to be inerrant it must be internally consistant. And if everything that is needed is in the Bible, then you do not need to go outside it to answer questions- no hypotheises, no discussion, nothing.

No problem.

 

[Archer93]

Adam wasn't made first --- the animals were.

Not according to Genesis 2.

Had it not been for Genesis 2 to further stipulate, we could assume they were created together; but Genesis 2 clearly shows that there was a passage of time before Eve came along.

Who's assuming? I'm going from the text.
"[Gen 1, 27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Not it doesn't.

Yes it does! (It's like panto this, isn't it? )
Gen 1
[6] And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
[7] And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
[8] And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
[9] And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
[10] And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

(verses 1-5 are the first day, 6-8 the second, 9-13 the third)

Gen 2
[4] These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

One day. Whether it's heaven or heavens.

 

[thaumaturgy]

If only nit-picky discussions of reality based on Genesis had something else to compare it to! Maybe if there was a real world to compare the Genesis account to.

It's all so theoretical.

Maybe someday someone somewhere will discover a real world to compare all this Genesis theory to!

I pray for that day to come. Oh would that it would be now that we had a real world to compare all this too.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not according to Genesis 2.

Please show me where, while at the same time paying respect to this line, from Post 78:

• Simply look at Genesis 2:19-20 as parenthetical, and the problem clears right up.

Who's assuming? I'm going from the text.
"[Gen 1, 27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

I, for one, would assume it; but I don't, thanks to Genesis 2.

Yes it does! (It's like panto this, isn't it? )
Gen 1
[6] And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
[7] And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
[8] And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
[9] And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
[10] And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

(verses 1-5 are the first day, 6-8 the second, 9-13 the third)

Gen 2
[4] These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

One day. Whether it's heaven or heavens.

The Law of Hermeneutics dictates that you interpret the word "day" in Genesis 2:4 as "week."

Just like "the day of the LORD" = the 7-year tribulation period.

 

[AV1611VET]

If only nit-picky discussions of reality based on Genesis had something else to compare it to! Maybe if there was a real world to compare the Genesis account to.

It's all so theoretical.

Maybe someday someone somewhere will discover a real world to compare all this Genesis theory to!

I pray for that day to come. Oh would that it would be now that we had a real world to compare all this too.

Don't lay that on the shoulders of your future "scientists" --- you do it yourself, Thaumaturgy --- right now.

Start with my Apple Challenge and be the first to show evidence for creatio ex nihilo.

 

[Archer93]

Where in either chapter, or anywhere else in the Bible, does it say that Gen 2 19-20 should be interpreted parenthetically?
Also, a parenthesis tends to explain or clarify the main sentence. Not contradict it outright.
It would be like me saying "On my way to work, I walked past a bus, a school and then an orange unicycling elephant (actually, the elephant was first, then the school)."
Since I've just contradicted myself, how can you really trust me about the elephant? I'm lying, deluded or at the very least unreliable in my recollections.

Law of Hermeneutics- again, where in the Bible does it say that it should be interpreted like that? It's literal- unless it isn't? This word translates as that one- unless it doesn't?

 

[GrayCat]

Question - what is the definition of "Day" in Genesis?

A day as Humans on Earth know it is one rotation of the Earth.

So was God creating everything timed along with the rotations of the Earth? Unless the Earth and Sun were the very first things He created, I don't see how this definition would work..

Also, i thought he was outside of Time? So why would he confine his creation to increments of time?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Don't lay that on the shoulders of your future "scientists" --- you do it yourself, Thaumaturgy --- right now.

Start with my Apple Challenge and be the first to show evidence for creatio ex nihilo.

Apples - Oranges - And Bananas

Apples: The ancient, biblical conceptions of the cosmos
Oranges: The modern conceptions.
Bananas: That what creationists say.

Say I create an orange into the palm of your hand. I give you documentation of how I created the apple. Now, please go and convince your friends that it was me who created the banana.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where in either chapter, or anywhere else in the Bible, does it say that Gen 2 19-20 should be interpreted parenthetically?

Actually, I made a minor error --- it's just verse 19 that should be interpreted parenthetically.

There are whole chapters that are parenthetical - (such as Romans 9 - 11.)

For clarity, read it like this:

• Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Or you could read it like this:

• Genesis 2:19 For out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Or you could read it like this:

• Genesis 2:19 (And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.)

As long as you get the right meaning from it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Question - what is the definition of "Day" in Genesis?

The context always rules when deciding what's meant. In Genesis 1, "day" is a 24-hour period. In Genesis 2:4, it's one week. In the book of Joel, "day" is a seven-year period, in 2 Peter 3:8, "day" is defined figuratively as 1000 years.

A day as Humans on Earth know it is one rotation of the Earth.

Yes --- but you don't need a rotating earth to measure a day. A day can be so many seconds, as determined by emissions of the Cesium atom, which very accurately measures our seconds.

So was God creating everything timed along with the rotations of the Earth? Unless the Earth and Sun were the very first things He created, I don't see how this definition would work.

He is simply stating that He did this certain work within a 24-hour period.

Also, i thought he was outside of Time?

Indeed He is.

So why would he confine his creation to increments of time?

He purposely took six days, so He could use that as a paradigm for the workweek as established in the Ten Commandments.

[bible]Exodus 20:11[/bible]

God never tells us to do something that He, Himself wouldn't do, and He tells us to work six days and rest the seventh; and that's exactly what He did as well.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Don't lay that on the shoulders of your future "scientists" --- you do it yourself, Thaumaturgy --- right now.

Been there, done that. Wrote a thesis and a dissertation on it.

Start with my Apple Challenge and be the first to show evidence for creatio ex nihilo.

You know, as far as I can tell the only answer you will allow for the "Apple Challenge" is

"It can't be proven!"

This of course in hopes that it will then have to be accepted since it cannot be falsified.

Which is pretty close to an unfalsifiable claim.

Perhaps in your magical apple challenge you should tell me what falsifiability criterion YOU would use.

Otherwise you aren't doing science and the Apple Challenge fails in a science discussion.

(Again, if only there was a real world to compare all this "angels and apples on the head of a pin" type discussion).

 

[AV1611VET]

Say I create an orange into the palm of your hand. I give you documentation of how I created the apple. Now, please go and convince your friends that it was me who created the banana.

Wow --- I'm impressed! Practicing to be a defender of atheism, are you?

That's pretty good!

 

[AV1611VET]

Been there, done that. Wrote a thesis and a dissertation on it.



You know, as far as I can tell the only answer you will allow for the "Apple Challenge" is

"It can't be proven!"

This of course in hopes that it will then have to be accepted since it cannot be falsified.

Which is pretty close to an unfalsifiable claim.

Perhaps in your magical apple challenge you should tell me what falsifiability criterion YOU would use.

Otherwise you aren't doing science and the Apple Challenge fails in a science discussion.

(Again, if only there was a real world to compare all this "angels and apples on the head of a pin" type discussion).

You don't get it, do you, Thaumaturgy? It's supposed to fail within the confines of a science discussion.

And by failing scientifically, it substantiates what I've been saying all along: there's no such thing as Creation Science.

So if I create an apple into the palm of your hand ex nihilo, and ask you what evidence would you use to convince your friend I did this --- you're SOL - (Sadly Outta Luck).

And yet by the same token, if you say I didn't do it --- you're wrong.

 

[Archer93]

Actually, I made a minor error --- it's just verse 19 that should be interpreted parenthetically.

There are whole chapters that are parenthetical - (such as Romans 9 - 11.)

For clarity, read it like this:

• Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Or you could read it like this:

• Genesis 2:19 For out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Or you could read it like this:

• Genesis 2:19 (And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.)

As long as you get the right meaning from it.

I see where you're coming from, but isn't this the thin end of the wedge? If a verse or two can be tweaked and adjusted to fit together, why can't other verses?
If the KJV as it stands is misleading at face value and needs interpreting, what else might need interpreting? If the translation is innaccurate enough to give the wrong verb tense, what else might be innaccurate?
Is there, then, any absolute line that can be drawn to divide 'acceptable' interpretations from 'unacceptable' ones?

Person A can have one interpretation that is correct, coherant and logical for them, and Person B's interpretation is very similar but slightly different on one point. It doesn't change the overall interpretation, but there is a difference. C's interpretaion is slightly different from B's, D's from C's, etc, etc, until these differences add up to a totally different doctrine from A's.
Who is right or wrong?

If the Bible is open to be interpreted and explained how can you establish the 'correct' interpretation?

 

[Merlin]

I see where you're coming from, but isn't this the thin end of the wedge? If a verse or two can be tweaked and adjusted to fit together, why can't other verses?
If the KJV as it stands is misleading at face value and needs interpreting, what else might need interpreting? If the translation is innaccurate enough to give the wrong verb tense, what else might be innaccurate?
Is there, then, any absolute line that can be drawn to divide 'acceptable' interpretations from 'unacceptable' ones?

Who is right or wrong?

If the Bible is open to be interpreted and explained how can you establish the 'correct' interpretation?

You ask good questions.

This is why it is best not to try to establish new doctrines but rather rely on other theologens unless you are reasonably fluent in Hebrew or Greek.

Most Christians trust their translations as being reasonably accurate.

On a day-to-day basis, this is adequate.
It probably is not enough when arguing the accuracy of the Bible tho.
But then, proving linguistic accuracy is not a day-to-day issue.

 

[BrainHertz]

And by failing scientifically, it substantiates what I've been saying all along: there's no such thing as Creation Science.

No argument...

 

[Loudmouth]

We know blueprints when we see them --- and Genesis 1 is a perfect set of blueprints.

The blueprint is not the house. If the blueprints show a wall where none exists in the house, which is wrong? The house or the blueprints?

If the Earth is quite different from what Genesis claims then which is wrong, Genesis or reality?