Chronogenesis II

[thaumaturgy]

It's a pet theory of mine that God purposely created the universe in the "wrong" order --- knowing that in the end times, there would arise a paradigm against this order, that is based on observation only.

Join the great minds who came up with "Diabolical Mimicry"!

Seems like there's no lack of strange anti-logic in religion, no matter when in history!

But can I ask a quick question?

Is it not equally an "observation" when you determine God's Order of Creation from the pages of the Bible?

I know this is a subtlety you will miss as you speed past every logic stop sign available to you (what with embedded age and now this fun analogue of diabolical mimicry as applied to science).

 

[TheManeki]

It's a pet theory of mine that God purposely created the universe in the "wrong" order --- knowing that in the end times, there would arise a paradigm against this order, that is based on observation only.

Wow. The mythical "end times," which, like the many conflicting kinds of creationism, is a theologically shaky Biblical interpretation supported by cherry-picking scripture.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's a pet theory of mine that God purposely created the universe in the "wrong" order --- knowing that in the end times, there would arise a paradigm against this order, that is based on observation only.

Why is it that observation alone leads to the incorrect order? Are you saying that God purposely made the Universe so that people would be fooled? Are you saying that God is a deceiver?

In other words, the fact that the order of Creation according to Genesis One is so different than the order according to atheistic paradigms;

Not according to atheistic paradigms. According to the Universe itself, as you have already stated here, "that is based on observation only."

it makes Genesis One stand out more, and gives more weight to the Creation being an act of God, rather than an act of nature.

No it doesn't. It gives more weight to the idea that the Creation story was not written by the deity (if there is one) that created this Universe.

 

[AV1611VET]

Join the great minds who came up with "Diabolical Mimicry"!

Oh, c'mon! If it was DM, God wouldn't have preserved it in His Word.

Seems like there's no lack of strange anti-logic in religion, no matter when in history!

That's because we're dealing with Someone Who doesn't work that way.

[bible]Isaiah 55:8[/bible]

But can I ask a quick question?

Is it not equally an "observation" when you determine God's Order of Creation from the pages of the Bible?

That's stretching it --- don't you think?

[bible]2 Corinthians 5:7[/bible]

I know this is a subtlety you will miss as you speed past every logic stop sign available to you (what with embedded age and now this fun analogue of diabolical mimicry as applied to science).

Sorry --- at the speed I'm going --- those red signs are blue [shifted].

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

It's a pet theory of mine that God purposely created the universe in the "wrong" order --- knowing that in the end times, there would arise a paradigm against this order, that is based on observation only.

In other words, the fact that the order of Creation according to Genesis One is so different than the order according to atheistic paradigms; it makes Genesis One stand out more, and gives more weight to the Creation being an act of God, rather than an act of nature.

Deuteronomy 32:4, Numbers 23:19, Psalm 146:6, Titus 1:2. Not to mention Isaiah 25:1, Psalm 115:1, etc etc. Or, failing that, just look at the combination of Psalm 119:160/John 17:17 and Psalm 19:1-2.

Pwnd. Your pet theory can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

Deuteronomy 32:4, Numbers 23:19, Psalm 146:6, Titus 1:2. Not to mention Isaiah 25:1, Psalm 115:1, etc etc. Or, failing that, just look at the combination of Psalm 119:160/John 17:17 and Psalm 19:1-2.

Pwnd. Your pet theory can take a hike.

[bible]Deuteronomy 32:4[/bible]
[bible]Numbers 23:19[/bible]
[bible]Psalm 146:6[/bible]

God is Truth --- that's why I'm so adamant that Genesis 1 is the right order.

 

[Loudmouth]

[bible]Deuteronomy 32:4[/bible]
[bible]Numbers 23:19[/bible]
[bible]Psalm 146:6[/bible]

God is Truth --- that's why I'm so adamant that Genesis 1 is the right order.

If God was Truth, then the observations would match up with Genesis 1. They don't.

 

[AV1611VET]

If God was Truth, then the observations would match up with Genesis 1. They don't.

No kidding!

Do you suspect something went wrong between Genesis 1 and 2008?

Something that drastically altered all of Creation?

If it wasn't for Genesis 1, we wouldn't have the correct order, would we?

 

[Loudmouth]

No kidding!

Do you suspect something went wrong between Genesis 1 and 2008?

I suspect something went wrong when Moses wrote Genesis.

If it wasn't for Genesis 1, we wouldn't have the correct order, would we?

We do have the right order without Genesis 1.

 

[TheManeki]

Of course, it's a stretch to assume Moses (or any single author) wrote Genesis in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis#structure_and_composition

 

[Soul Searcher]

God is Truth --- that's why I'm so adamant that Genesis 1 is the right order.

Yet Genesis 2 does not agree with Genesis 1 saying that man was created before the animals and woman was created after man had named all the animals. One of the two is clearly in the wrong order and if God is truth the one is forced to conclude that he did not write one or either of those books rather someone else wrote them, likely two different people and those who combined the two did not know enough about the world to see the error. Today it is clear to any who really look closely at it.

 

[Assyrian]

No kidding!

Do you suspect something went wrong between Genesis 1 and 2008?

Something that drastically altered all of Creation?

How could something happening after the creation alter the order it had already happened in?

Do you have any evidence from either the natural world or scripture of the changes you propose? I don't mean the disparity between your interpretation of Genesis 1 and the real world, but actual evidence of the changes, or reference in scripture to these changes taking place.

If it wasn't for Genesis 1, we wouldn't have the correct order, would we?

How do you know it isn't Genesis 2 that give the correct order?

 

[Assyrian]

I suspect something went wrong when Moses wrote Genesis.

Or when AV read it

 

[Skaloop]

How could something happening after the creation alter the order it had already happened in?

I think what he's going for is that things were created as in Genesis 1, then the Flood came along and everything got changed because of it, and now we observe a different creation order. So Genesis 1 is the only record of how things really happened because now we are looking at altered data.

What's it mean when I start to understand AV's arguments?

 

[Vene]

I think what he's going for is that things were created as in Genesis 1, then the Flood came along and everything got changed because of it, and now we observe a different creation order. So Genesis 1 is the only record of how things really happened because now we are looking at altered data.

What's it mean when I start to understand AV's arguments?

What about the fall? Where does that fit in with everything?

 

[Skaloop]

What about the fall? Where does that fit in with everything?

Maybe he means the fall rather than the flood. I dunno. But the fall is what eventually caused the need for the flood anyway, so it's all a rich tapestry.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course, it's a stretch to assume Moses (or any single author) wrote Genesis in the first place.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yet Genesis 2 does not agree with Genesis 1 saying that man was created before the animals and woman was created after man had named all the animals. One of the two is clearly in the wrong order and if God is truth the one is forced to conclude that he did not write one or either of those books rather someone else wrote them, likely two different people and those who combined the two did not know enough about the world to see the error. Today it is clear to any who really look closely at it.

It's clear to me SS, that Genesis 2 is not another account of the Creation.

Rather, it's Adam's account of his marriage to Eve.

Notice this passage ---

[bible]Mark 10:6-7[/bible]

Verse 6 references Genesis 1, and verse 7 references Genesis 2.

Thus Jesus recognized their validity --- and so should we.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you have any evidence from either the natural world or scripture of the changes you propose? I don't mean the disparity between your interpretation of Genesis 1 and the real world, but actual evidence of the changes, or reference in scripture to these changes taking place.

Yes --- when the Fall occurred, God cursed His Creation ---

[bible]Genesis 3:17[/bible]

--- and it still groans today, awaiting its redemption ---

[bible]Romans 8:22[/bible]

 

[Soul Searcher]

It's clear to me SS, that Genesis 2 is not another account of the Creation.

Rather, it's Adam's account of his marriage to Eve.

But that doesn't make any sense.Gen 2 clearly states that man was created before the animals and that the animals were all brought to him to name then when no mate was found among all the animals the female was made from Adams own body.

Gen1 states that the animals were created before man and man and woman were created last and at the same time. What's more Gen 2 gives the indication that there were no plants before man was created either and that man was required to till the soil in order for the plants to grow. Gen 1 on the other hand says pretty much everything was created before man.

A literal read shows much disagreement between these two chapters.