Creation: Genesis contradictions? - by Don Batten

[PsychoSarah]

These seem to be out of your own mind as you have not documented your sources. I'm not into affirming or disconfirming your assertions.

they are personal; if i cited an expert, it would be their qualifications, not mine. I don't claim expert status, but I am not so ignorant of the subject matter that you can just brush off my imput. In my personal opinion, the bible is a mix of historical accounts written down from a religious perspective, and straight up religious myth.

 

[OzSpen]

That's not the definition this site abides by, nor what I said. I said a Christian believes in the biblical god (YHWH, though many don't know that name), and accepts Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. Nothing else. It doesn't matter if they think that is the only way to salvation or not, that is literally all that is needed to be a Christian. The qualifications for specific denominations are different, but to be a Christian in general, you need only those two things.

Elohim was the name for God throughout Genesis 1 and YHWH was only used from Gen 2:4.

Well, I can present mine, if you want.

1. Historical narratives will not have characters with names related to their role or personality. Biblical violations: nearly every character in Genesis and Exodus, others sprinkled through the text. Primarily a trait of the Old Testament. Exceptions: names earned from deeds, titles, etc.

2. Historical narratives have events take place in real places. Biblical violations: potentially none; many of the places named in the bible have been confirmed to be real, while others seem likely to exist. However, not every place has left behind definitive evidence, so it is impossible to be sure every place referenced as existing in context actually did. Exceptions: references to places characters do not visit or come from, but have been told about.

3. Historical narratives won't have animals that definitively are not real, but they can have such creatures if it is plausible that a sighting of them could be attributed to a real creature that shares key traits with the mystical ones. Biblical violations: Wizards and Witches (people with that power would surely use it to save themselves if ever attacked, but the bible treats them as killable by normal people); dragons (even if ancient people found dinosaur bones, too many details of dragons do not fit to excuse it, especially considering the bird and mammal traits more ancient depictions of dragons had). Exceptions: Unicorns (unlikely to be a horse, but could refer to rhinos. On rare occasions, goats and other horned animals that normally have two horns only develop one, so they also could be associated with sightings). Giants: allegorically could refer to dinosaurs, humanoid giants claimed to be seen alive in the bible are presented as lies in context, and older versions of the bible place Goliath much shorter, at a plausible 6' 7", which would be giant relative to most people; Sea Monsters (most are larger, scarier versions of real creatures, and others are associated with unclear glimpses of real creatures).
*I likely do not recall every creature mentioned in the bible that could fall into this category.

4. Historical narratives can have feasible errors, such as exaggerations and misunderstandings of other cultures. However, these cannot be so severe that they compromise the legitimacy of events in the story. Biblical violations: the bible severely botches Egyptian culture to the point that a few key events within it rely upon the wrong culture existing in Egypt. For example, in the bible, one of the Pharaohs states another person as being equal to them. No Egyptian Pharaoh would ever do that, as within the culture, the Pharaohs were living gods, and no human could ever be considered equal to a god, and the only living gods were the Pharaoh and the chosen heir. How slavery and servitude in Egypt additionally is extremely misrepresented, and the bible marks them as weirdly tolerant of people not worshipping the Egyptian gods. Exceptions: foreign peoples treated negatively, but their culture is not elaborated with much detail in the bible (meaning what is said could be based more in rumor).

5. Historical narratives will not reference technology that did not exist. Biblical violations: none that I am aware of.

These are find with you as guidelines, yes?

Of these 5 points for 'historical narratives', you have provided not one of them (with references to sources) that comes from historians and the criteria they use.

So have these 5 points come out of your own mind - your invention?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

they are personal; if i cited an expert, it would be their qualifications, not mine. I don't claim expert status, but I am not so ignorant of the subject matter that you can just brush off my imput. In my personal opinion, the bible is a mix of historical accounts written down from a religious perspective, and straight up religious myth.

If you are going to make statements about historical narratives, which you have done, surely it behooves you to consult historians to determine which criteria they use to determine the accuracy or otherwise of historical narratives. Or are you a qualified historian?

You have made personal statements here that could be challenged (I don't have the time at the moment). I'm thinking of statements such as,

• 'if i cited an expert, it would be their qualifications, not mine'. No, if you cite a historian, you would be citing someone who have developed his life's work around understanding history. What makes your views on historical narratives of the Bible any more expert for me to consider than that of historians Thomas A Fudge or Paul Barnett?
• 'the bible is a mix of historical accounts written down from a religious perspective'. All written historical accounts have to taken into account the worldview of the historian. 'Religious perspective' is hardly accurate. Biblical history is coming through those committed to a Judeo-Christian worldview.
• 'straight up religious myth'. I have no idea what you mean by this. Are you saying that all of biblical history is based on religious myth?

Oz

 

[SkyWriting]

Amen. Hog has an error filled view which does not agree with Scripture. It falsely assumes that God just made a mistake and told us two contradictory accounts in the first two chapters of Genesis.

And nobody noticed till yesterday.

 

[SkyWriting]

Amen. Let me be more specific. Since Genesis chapter one is the complete HISTORY of God's 6 Days (periods of time) of the Creation and ALL of the rest of the Bible refers BACK to the events of these 6 Days, Chapter one cannot be understood without the details from Gen 2:4 to the end of Revelation of the events of God's 6 Days/Ages of Creation AND living in an Age of increased knowledge.

This interpretation has been hidden until the last days of this Earth in the Scientific discoveries of our time. It's empirical evidence of the Literal God since NO man could have known of the latest discoveries of today's Science 3k years ago. Amen?

Wrong. 200 years from now, you will be in the stone age and THEY will think they are the enlightened ones.
No, the scriptures were written for all times.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If you are going to make statements about historical narratives, which you have done, surely it behooves you to consult historians to determine which criteria they use to determine the accuracy or otherwise of historical narratives. Or are you a qualified historian?

I'll do that when this is an actual formal debate. Which it is not. Additionally, your wording of your question was off if you expected anything besides personal qualifications. My qualifications are not expert, but they aren't uninformed either, so to disregard what I have to say as "worthless" because I didn't consult first is opening up a can of worms you will most certainly regret. In these debates, parroting what others have to say is FROWNED UPON; you can gain inspiration from experts, and even quote them, but to go by what they say and not have your own opinion or input is considered bad, as it doesn't demonstrate your knowledge of the topic. If there is anything wrong with the qualifications I brought up, please, bring up what you have to say, and only you, because I doubt any expert has been through this exact situation and has responses tailored to it for you to refer to.

You have made personal statements here that could be challenged (I don't have the time at the moment). I'm thinking of statements such as,

• 'if i cited an expert, it would be their qualifications, not mine'. No, if you cite a historian, you would be citing someone who have developed his life's work around understanding history. What makes your views on historical narratives of the Bible any more expert for me to consider than that of historians Thomas A Fudge or Paul Barnett?

I've already denied expert status, and do not claim to have as strong a word as one. However, I am relatively informed on the topic, so unless you see something glaringly wrong with what I said, there is no reason to consider my input garbage. I don't have to work off of someone else to have a valid point or perspective on history or how it should be evaluated. Chances are, however, that what I proposed does already exist, as it was pretty intuitive.

• 'the bible is a mix of historical accounts written down from a religious perspective'. All written historical accounts have to taken into account the worldview of the historian. 'Religious perspective' is hardly accurate. Biblical history is coming through those committed to a Judeo-Christian worldview.

The Judeo-Christian worldview is religious, by definition. You seem to be a person that is troubled by the negative connotations some people like to attach to the term "religious", but that sounds like a personal problem to me.

• 'straight up religious myth'. I have no idea what you mean by this. Are you saying that all of biblical history is based on religious myth?

Oz

Of course not, I did say it was a mix, but I never stated it was a homogenous mix. Some parts seem to be part of a deeply rooted myth rather than historical account, such as the flood story, while other parts do seem to reference actual events. All of it is written from the perspective of essentially one side, however, and that has to be taken into account. For example, no nonbelievers are represented in the authors of any of the texts, making them highly biased towards certain perspectives.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Of these 5 points for 'historical narratives', you have provided not one of them (with references to sources) that comes from historians and the criteria they use.

So have these 5 points come out of your own mine - your invention?

Oz

That's what I interpreted you as asking for. However, they aren't pulled straight out of my butt by any means, and have logical sense and intuitiveness behind them. I have read many historical texts as well as mythos, so from personal experience, I know what one typically has while the other doesn't.

 

[OzSpen]

I'll do that when this is an actual formal debate. Which it is not. Additionally, your wording of your question was off if you expected anything besides personal qualifications. My qualifications are not expert, but they aren't uninformed either, so to disregard what I have to say as "worthless" because I didn't consult first is opening up a can of worms you will most certainly regret. In these debates, parroting what others have to say is FROWNED UPON; you can gain inspiration from experts, and even quote them, but to go by what they say and not have your own opinion or input is considered bad, as it doesn't demonstrate your knowledge of the topic. If there is anything wrong with the qualifications I brought up, please, bring up what you have to say, and only you, because I doubt any expert has been through this exact situation and has responses tailored to it for you to refer to.

I've already denied expert status, and do not claim to have as strong a word as one. However, I am relatively informed on the topic, so unless you see something glaringly wrong with what I said, there is no reason to consider my input garbage. I don't have to work off of someone else to have a valid point or perspective on history or how it should be evaluated. Chances are, however, that what I proposed does already exist, as it was pretty intuitive.
The Judeo-Christian worldview is religious, by definition. You seem to be a person that is troubled by the negative connotations some people like to attach to the term "religious", but that sounds like a personal problem to me.
Of course not, I did say it was a mix, but I never stated it was a homogenous mix. Some parts seem to be part of a deeply rooted myth rather than historical account, such as the flood story, while other parts do seem to reference actual events. All of it is written from the perspective of essentially one side, however, and that has to be taken into account. For example, no nonbelievers are represented in the authors of any of the texts, making them highly biased towards certain perspectives.

You don't seem to know the difference between religious and relationship. I have a relationship with the Lord God through Christ.

 

[Jay Follett]

I have a relationship with the Lord God through Christ.

Why should the creator of everything have anything to do with us? you may think you have a relationship with God but does God know about this relationship? are you sure your imagined relationship is not just one big ego trip on your part?
I'm just asking.

 

[OzSpen]

Why should the creator of everything have anything to do with us? you may think you have a relationship with God but does God know about this relationship? are you sure your imagined relationship is not just one big ego trip on your part?
I'm just asking.

Why should the Creator have anything to do with human beings? We are not animals. That's because we are made in the image of God and he wants a relationship with human beings. This is stated in the first chapter of Gen 1;26-27 (ESV):

Then God said, “Let us make man [Heb adam = mankind] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

From Genesis to Revelation, we are told of how God interacted with human beings for their good and judgment.

Why are you asking this question with the use of a pejorative comment about my 'imagined relationship' with God?

The reason I have a relationship with God (and this is not a religious exercise) is that I, a rebel sinner, have become reconciled with Him, thanks to my being justified by the grace of Jesus and my faith in him.

You may not understand this but this is how the Scriptures describe what has happened to all Christian believers:

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation (2 Cor 5:18-19 ESV).

Posing these issues in question form does not get over the fact that these negative terms are in your mind about Christians and what a relationship with God involves.

Since I am reconciled with God, I am in relationship with Him and all other members of the family of God. This is not one big ego trip, but is a genuine relationship with the Lord God Almighty.

Why don't you consider joining me through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

-_- your "relationship", from my perspective, is religious in nature, get over it. I do know the difference, but understand that to me, your relationship is similar to that a very astute child has with an imaginary friend they insist is real. I mean, how would you view a relationship a person claimed to have with Zeus? Or Odin? If you didn't view it as some demonic trickery, you'd probably view people that made these claims as I view yours, although you might not be as kind, perhaps.

I don't mean it as an insult, but that's my perspective. Furthermore, the bible itself confirms the religious nature of belief; your relationship with god is, in biblical canon, religious. The relationship between a person and another person and between a person and god is stated to be fundamentally different, and I am not just talking in the physical sense.

Don't expect any atheist to view your relationship with your personal god as more legitimate or special than anyone else's with their personal god of choice. And to use an overused Shakespeare reference: "a rose by any other name is still a rose".

Also, why did you quote the entirety of my post, only to respond to a tiny bit of it that wasn't even the most important aspect of it or the main topic? I sincerely do not care about the small details of what is or isn't religious to you, and it was never important to the discussion. You just arbitrarily decided to focus on an afterthought.

Your pejorative comments about my relationship with God do not need further comment.

I would never descend so low as you have done to me, in my wanting to communicate with you about your atheism.

Bye, bye

Oz

 

[AV1611VET]

No,I want an ENTIRE Bible that is error free.

Write one yourself.

What's that saying?

If you want something done right, do it yourself?

Just out of curiosity, how would you write Genesis 1:1 error free?

That is, in such a way that even the scientific community would agree with you?

 

[freezerman2000]

I'm not qualified to write one.A theologian I am not.

 

[freezerman2000]

No,because of the last lines of Revelation.
The closer to the original texts,the more accurate they are..
Compare one of the oldest Catholic Bibles before man started throwing script out or adding to it with the KJV and you will see what I mean.

 

[Aman777]

Are you saying that the gullible are the only ones who will be saved? the ones who use the brains God gave them and ask for evidence will be damned?

Of course not. The saved are those who sincerely seek to know the Truth.

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.

Do you believe that God exists and that He rewards those who seek Him with the Free Gift of Faith so that they can live forever?

Eph 2:8 For by grace (Unmerited reward) are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

The Gift of God is the Faith to believe in the death for our sins, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ on the third day, according to the Scriptures. It is the power of God unto Salvation. Those people of flesh who have this Gift of Faith are saved:

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.

All people of Flesh, without the Spirit of God, are subject to Death.

 

[Aman777]

Wrong. 200 years from now, you will be in the stone age and THEY will think they are the enlightened ones.
No, the scriptures were written for all times.

Then please tell us what the following verse is saying:

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

 

[Aman777]

Why should the creator of everything have anything to do with us? you may think you have a relationship with God but does God know about this relationship? are you sure your imagined relationship is not just one big ego trip on your part?
I'm just asking.

It's because we are the Spiritual Children of the invisible Spirit of God. Do you have children? If so, you can understand a tiny bit of the Love of our Heavenly Father? We did NOT evolve from an Ape but we are a Special Creation of the Trinity. IF you have been born again Spiritually, you will understand. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

Do you have anything to show to yourself or anyone else that it's anything other than a figment of your imagination? anything? all you have is a feeling and we all have lots and lots of feelings none of which we associate with a supernatural being.

I have much evidence, along with the agreement of every discovery of Science and History, to support my view that there is a Literal God and His name is Jesus. Want to see?

 

[OzSpen]

Do you have anything to show to yourself or anyone else that it's anything other than a figment of your imagination? anything? all you have is a feeling and we all have lots and lots of feelings none of which we associate with a supernatural being.

This is a straw man fallacy of an argument about my beliefs. It is a figment of your imagination as it has nothing (do you get it? NOTHING) to do with my Christian beliefs. You have not even met me and I have engaged with you very little on CF.com, but you are prepared to state that 'all you have is a feeling'. That's baloney! It's so far from factual. So it is a straw man fallacy.

We can't have a logical discussion when you resort to these tactics.

 

[SkyWriting]

Then please tell us what the following verse is saying:

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Knowledge about God, which occurs after Christ returns
and reveals Himself to every person on earth, not before.

http://biblehub.com/topical/k/knowledge.htm