Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?

[Aman777]

You are aware, I hope, that the pronoun HIS doesn't exclusively apply to God.

Who else was around at that time? There was God incarnate or YHWH Who came to Earth as the man Jesus Christ. His, in context, means Jesus, since God is an invisible Trinity, the Spirit of Love.

You seem to think I am not seeing your point. You are wrong. I do see exactly what you are trying to say. I am just saying that I think your point is incorrect. Repeating the same point I have already discounted is not going to make it more convincing.

Then please explain your disagreement. Is your view based on a general dismissal of the Bible as nothing but old myth? Or, do you think today's Humans are smarter than God?

And you going in to add capital letters to "his" when that word is not capitalized in the actual Bible just makes you look deceptive.

I got it from the ancient Hebrews who refused to say the name of their God since it was so special. They still refer to God as G-d. I capitalize every reference to God and Jesus out of reverence to them. It also lets my readers understand my view of what the verses are saying IMHO. It's hard to be nice sometimes but much easier to be critical. Amen?

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey kylie.

So we have a chronological order. We both agree.

Yes. Genesis 1 presents a chronological sequence.

Unfortunately, Genesis 2 also presents a chronological sequence, and the two do not agree.

Yes we are talking animals and man.

But

2:5 And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Jehovah God had not caused it to rain upon the earth: and there was not a man to till the ground;

So even though God created these plants and every living thing, it does not say that the earth was populated by such things yet.

No plants would equal no food for animals. No man to till.

It seems as if God did the prep work and It wasnt until the earth was watered that we had vegetation and flora?

It is also perfectly possible to interpret that as saying that there were no plants because God hadn't made them yet. There is NOTHING in those lines to show that God had already created them but just hadn't put them there yet.

Yes i did form a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. I wasnt there! I formed the theory from reading the chronological order of thins. Creation qas done, now we are at the garden of eden.

What u think?

I think that if all you have is speculation, you aren't going to convince me.

Yes it does matter. Do we follow a chronological order or is it a revisit to the 6th day? It is called context.

Context is important or it becomes quote mining on your behalf.

Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[2] It's a way of lying.

How are you not guilty of quote mining?

I am not quote mining. I am pointing out the context of the passages of Genesis 2, because I am showing how the passages are arranged relative to other passages. For example, I am pointing out that the passage where God creates Man is BEFORE the passage where he creates animals. I am also pointing out that the fact that the two passages are arranged like this is important to the overall narrative structure of what is being said in Genesis 2. God creates Man, and then decides that this man needs a companion. If God is going to try to create animals to serve as companions for Man, then these animals MUST be created AFTER the man is. And then, when none of the animals is a satisfactory companion, God creates woman - again, the narrative requires this to be AFTER God has created both man and animals. I am certainly NOT taking things out of context. I am using the context to show that it contradicts Genesis 1.

The start of Chapter 2 is about the garden of eden. Do you disagree? Why is it not the start of the garden of eden? Show me?

So when you said "origin" you meant "Garden of Eden"? Why didn't you just say that? Please be clear in what you say.

The 6th day creation got told to go forth and multiply, chapter 2 man got told to stay put and not eat from the tree. What you think? Could there be 2 separate creations, one created on the 6th day and one created after the 7 days of completion?

Two separate creations? So God didn't like the one in Gen 1 and decided to start over? This idea certainly seems to be a stretch.

Where does it say in 2:18 god created those animals on the spot. Creation is over, which are you following. Chronological or are we revisiting the 6th day?

God says, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."

He does NOT say, "It is not good that the man is alone, luckily I made some critters earlier, and I'll see if he likes them."

Really? Does the word implement cause you confusion? Is that word mental gymnastics for you?

Not at all. It is your claim that the Bible says God made the animals actually means God was implementing animals that had previously been made that is the mental gymnastics.

We could be, i want us to figure it out together.

We are not finished yet. We need more back and forth then effort you have put in so far!

Do you actually expect me to believe that? You just want to convince me that your speculation is right.

Well 2 can play at that game. I think you are so intent on the bible being erroneous you will look for anything to disregard it and pour scorn. You see something you think is a contradiction and run with it, without knowing context.

Well, if someone says what happened, and then they tell the story again but there are changes in the order that events happened, I don't start trying to figure out how both stories could be right. I figure that one or both of the stories is made up.

You are guilty of quote mining to help your confirmation bias.

No I'm not.

Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[2] It's a way of lying.

True. And I haven't done it. I have ALWAYS pointed out the context of the passages I quote from the Bible to show how the context has changed.

 

[Kylie]

Maybe I can help? Adam was "formed" like a Potter molds clay and given life by YHWH/Jesus on the 3rd Day BEFORE plants, herbs and rain, according to Genesis 2:4-7

Adam was "created in God's Image" or born again Spiritually on the present 6th Day, the Day of Salvation, according to Jesus. 2Co 6:2

Adam and Eve were born again Spiritually at the SAME time and Eve was NOT made from Adam's rib until the present 6th Day. Gen 2:22

It takes the AGREEMENT of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to "create" an Eternal Being, a Christian. Genesis 1:26 Genesis 5:1-2 and John 14:16 Amen?

This changes nothing.

The order is still:

1. God makes Man.
2. God makes Garden.
3. God decides that man should not be alone and makes animals as companions.
4. Animals are unsuitable companions, God makes woman.

This directly contradicts Genesis 1, where the order is:

1. God makes plants on the third day.
2. God makes swimming animals and flying animals on the fifth day.
3. God makes animals of the earth and both man and woman on the sixth day.

Your attempts to claim that Eve was born spiritually at the same time as Adam are pure speculation, and also create an inconsistency. If God knew he would have to create Eve as a companion, why did he first try all the animals as companions when he knew they would not work?

Also, Genesis 2 makes iot clear that it is a PHYSICAL birth being described, not a spiritual one, as you claim it to be.

 

[Kylie]

Who else was around at that time? There was God incarnate or YHWH Who came to Earth as the man Jesus Christ. His, in context, means Jesus, since God is an invisible Trinity, the Spirit of Love.

It is referring to the beasts. I have already explained how this works.

Then please explain your disagreement. Is your view based on a general dismissal of the Bible as nothing but old myth? Or, do you think today's Humans are smarter than God?

I have been doing nothing BUT explain why I disagree!

And yes, I certainly do think that modern science has more credibility that old stories.

I got it from the ancient Hebrews who refused to say the name of their God since it was so special. They still refer to God as G-d. I capitalize every reference to God and Jesus out of reverence to them. It also lets my readers understand my view of what the verses are saying IMHO. It's hard to be nice sometimes but much easier to be critical. Amen?

Except the Bible doesn't capitalize it in these passages, does it, despite the fact that it ALWAYS capitalizes it when it is referring to God.

So you decide that it is referring to God, therefore you capitalize it, and then conclude that since you have capitalized it, it must be referring to God.

Circular logic at its best.

 

[Speedwell]

The Hebrew alphabet does not admit of capital letters. Any capital letters in the Genesis stories were put in later by translators.

 

[Aman777]

This changes nothing.

The order is still:

1. God makes Man

Correction: Lord God/Jesus "forms" man of the dust of the ground and gives Adam temporary life and subject to death, before the plants herbs and rain on the THIRD Day. Gen 2:4-7 This was some 14 Billion years ago, in man's time.

God makes Garden.

You skipped the first Day when Jesus came into the physical world as the Light of the first Day. Jesus speaks of this 4.5 Billion years of time just before His crucifixion:

Jhn 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou Me with Thine own self with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.

There was but One Day before Adam's firmament was made on the 2nd Day. Genesis 1:6-8 It was the FIRST Day and Jesus was with the Father and had a Glory/Brightness.

God decides that man should not be alone and makes animals as companions.

He knew it all along and spent an enormous amount of time forming animals from the dust and Adam naming them, until finally, He made Eve.

Animals are unsuitable companions, God makes woman.

Amen. After all the "common ancestors" were sculpted by the Master Potter, He gave temporary life to Eve, knowing that she would tempt Adam into disobeying God or sinning and death would come upon ALL of Humankind.

This directly contradicts Genesis 1, where the order is:

1. God makes plants on the third day.

Amen, but BEFORE He made the plants, He formed Adam physically from the dust of the ground. Genesis 2:4-7

God makes swimming animals and flying animals on the fifth day.

Amen, but to be exact, God made "every living creature that moveth" from water on the 5th Day. This included the sons of God (prehistoric people) since they "moveth". God knew that Humans were too violent and that he would totally destroy Adam's firmament, so life came from water on Adam's Earth AND the present Earth, 3.8 Billion years ago, in man's time.

God makes animals of the earth and both man and woman on the sixth day.

Doesn't work since Genesis 2:19 shows that Adam NAMED the animals made from the ground at the BEGINNING of the present 6th Day/Age. Adam was with Jesus for Billions of years, in man's time. From the 3rd to the present 6th Day, Adam was there.

Your attempts to claim that Eve was born spiritually at the same time as Adam are pure speculation, and also create an inconsistency. If God knew he would have to create Eve as a companion, why did he first try all the animals as companions when he knew they would not work?

Adam was "formed" by Lord God/Jesus the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4-7
Adam was "created" by God the Trinity at the same time Eve was "created" by God the Trinity and the way every Christian is born again Spiritually in Christ. Genesis 1:27 Genesis 5:1-2 and John 14:16 Adam and Eve, along with EVERY Christian is born Spiritually on the present 6th Day, the Day/Age of Salvation 2Co 6:2 which continues today according to the Lord.

Also, Genesis 2 makes iot clear that it is a PHYSICAL birth being described, not a spiritual one, as you claim it to be.

It only seems that way to you. If you were born of the Spirit of the Author of Genesis, it would be easier for you to understand. Amen?

 

[Kylie]

Correction: Lord God/Jesus "forms" man of the dust of the ground and gives Adam temporary life and subject to death, before the plants herbs and rain on the THIRD Day. Gen 2:4-7 This was some 14 Billion years ago, in man's time.

And once again we have someone quibbling over the meaning of a word because they don't want to address what is actually being said.

You skipped the first Day when Jesus came into the physical world as the Light of the first Day. Jesus speaks of this 4.5 Billion years of time just before His crucifixion:

Jhn 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou Me with Thine own self with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.

There was but One Day before Adam's firmament was made on the 2nd Day. Genesis 1:6-8 It was the FIRST Day and Jesus was with the Father and had a Glory/Brightness.

Because it isn't relevant to the order that man, woman and animals were created. Stop trying to change the topic.

He knew it all along and spent an enormous amount of time forming animals from the dust and Adam naming them, until finally, He made Eve.

Then why didn't he make Eve first if he knew the animals were going to be unsuitable companions?

Amen. After all the "common ancestors" were sculpted by the Master Potter, He gave temporary life to Eve, knowing that she would tempt Adam into disobeying God or sinning and death would come upon ALL of Humankind.

So God intentionally set up a system designed for humanity to fail, and then punishes them for it?

Isn't that like me giving my daughter an examination on quantum mechanics and then punishing her when she fails? I mean, punishing her for failing something I know she doesn't have a chance of succeeding in is incredibly unfair of me, isn't it?

Amen, but BEFORE He made the plants, He formed Adam physically from the dust of the ground. Genesis 2:4-7

Then why does Genesis 1 say something different?

Amen, but to be exact, God made "every living creature that moveth" from water on the 5th Day. This included the sons of God (prehistoric people) since they "moveth". God knew that Humans were too violent and that he would totally destroy Adam's firmament, so life came from water on Adam's Earth AND the present Earth, 3.8 Billion years ago, in man's time.

So there are two Earths now?

Doesn't work since Genesis 2:19 shows that Adam NAMED the animals made from the ground at the BEGINNING of the present 6th Day/Age. Adam was with Jesus for Billions of years, in man's time. From the 3rd to the present 6th Day, Adam was there.

Genesis 1:24-31 makes it very clear that God created man and woman at the same time, AFTER he had made all the animals.

Adam was "formed" by Lord God/Jesus the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4-7
Adam was "created" by God the Trinity at the same time Eve was "created" by God the Trinity and the way every Christian is born again Spiritually in Christ. Genesis 1:27 Genesis 5:1-2 and John 14:16 Adam and Eve, along with EVERY Christian is born Spiritually on the present 6th Day, the Day/Age of Salvation 2Co 6:2 which continues today according to the Lord.

Yeah, your attempts to use two different words that mean the same thing and claim that they mean two different things are very transparent and entirely unconvincing.

It only seems that way to you. If you were born of the Spirit of the Author of Genesis, it would be easier for you to understand. Amen?

I agree. If I was motivated to believe the Bible because I had been indoctrinated to believe it was true, I would probably find a way to convince myself that it was.

However, I prefer being able to think critically about things.

 

[Aman777]

So there are two Earths now?

Yes. There is the current Earth and the 3rd Heaven's Earth, where Jesus has gone to prepare a place for us. Adam's Earth was "clean dissolved" Isa 24:19 and perished (totally destroyed) in the flood. ll Peter 3:6

Genesis 1:24-31 makes it very clear that God created man and woman at the same time, AFTER he had made all the animals.

Amen. That is WHEN Adam and Eve were born again Spiritually. All Christians are "created in God's Image" or born Spiritually in Christ, according to Rom 8:9. Have you been born again?

 

[Kylie]

Yes. There is the current Earth and the 3rd Heaven's Earth, where Jesus has gone to prepare a place for us. Adam's Earth was "clean dissolved" Isa 24:19 and perished (totally destroyed) in the flood. ll Peter 3:6

Are you for real?

That's like saying that if I put dinner on a plate, eat the dinner then wash the plate that it's a totally new plate.

Amen. That is WHEN Adam and Eve were born again Spiritually. All Christians are "created in God's Image" or born Spiritually in Christ, according to Rom 8:9.

I do not see how your interpretation of this is supported by the Bible. Like I said, I suspect you have simply reached your conclusion and are now interpreting the Bible in a way that agrees with your preconceived notions. Then you use this to claim that your notions are correct, because your interpretation of the Bible agrees with them.

Have you been born again?

Come on dude. Are you really asking me this? I've made it very clear I'm an atheist. Your incredibly stretched interpretations of the Bible have not come close to convincing me that you are even close to being correct.

 

[Aman777]

Are you for real?

That's like saying that if I put dinner on a plate, eat the dinner then wash the plate that it's a totally new plate.

The Multiverse is the plate and it has 3 areas. One is covered in water and was where Adam's firmament/world existed. The current world is not surrounded by water and it will be burned. The New Heaven and New Earth of Revelation 21:1 (the 3rd Heaven of ll Cor 12:2) is what is normally referred to as "Heaven". IOW, Three heavens/universes within one Multiverse. Kinda like the Trinity?

I do not see how your interpretation of this is supported by the Bible. Like I said, I suspect you have simply reached your conclusion and are now interpreting the Bible in a way that agrees with your preconceived notions. Then you use this to claim that your notions are correct, because your interpretation of the Bible agrees with them.

Adam was formed on the 3rd Day from the dust before the plants, herbs and rain. Genesis 2:4-7 Eve was made from Adam's rib on the present 6th Day. Genesis 2:22 BOTH were created/born again by God the Trinity at the SAME time. Genesis 1:27 Genesis 5:1-2 John 14:16

Come on dude. Are you really asking me this? I've made it very clear I'm an atheist. Your incredibly stretched interpretations of the Bible have not come close to convincing me that you are even close to being correct.

Then TRY to refute my views one at a time and you will find that they are ALL supported by the agreement of Scripture science and history. Faith plus Fact equals God's Truth. Who else is showing you this agreement which leads to the One Truth?

Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the Truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.

 

[Kylie]

The Multiverse is the plate and it has 3 areas. One is covered in water and was where Adam's firmament/world existed. The current world is not surrounded by water and it will be burned. The New Heaven and New Earth of Revelation 21:1 (the 3rd Heaven of ll Cor 12:2) is what is normally referred to as "Heaven". IOW, Three heavens/universes within one Multiverse. Kinda like the Trinity?

I see no evidence to support this claim.

Adam was formed on the 3rd Day from the dust before the plants, herbs and rain. Genesis 2:4-7 Eve was made from Adam's rib on the present 6th Day. Genesis 2:22 BOTH were created/born again by God the Trinity at the SAME time. Genesis 1:27 Genesis 5:1-2 John 14:16

You are simply indulging in speculation in order to come up with an interpretation that allows you to believe that all of the Bible is without contradiction.

Then TRY to refute my views one at a time and you will find that they are ALL supported by the agreement of Scripture science and history. Faith plus Fact equals God's Truth. Who else is showing you this agreement which leads to the One Truth?

Your speculation is not the way to any kind of truth. What you have is the religious equivalent of a fan theory.

Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the Truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.

Do you think this is going to be the remotest bit convincing to me? Seriously, what is up with people who think quoting the Bible is going to make me stop being an atheist? You think I haven't read the Bible? Honestly, it just comes across as smug arrogance, and no one likes that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you think this is going to be the remotest bit convincing to me? Seriously, what is up with people who think quoting the Bible is going to make me stop being an atheist? You think I haven't read the Bible? Honestly, it just comes across as smug arrogance, and no one likes that.

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

 

[Kylie]

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Cool story bro.

 

[Aman777]

I see no evidence to support this claim.

1Co 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

You are simply indulging in speculation in order to come up with an interpretation that allows you to believe that all of the Bible is without contradiction.

Why do you think I've been online for so many years in order to tell unbelievers of their sure fate? My view AGREES with every discovered Truth of Scripture science and history.

Your speculation is not the way to any kind of truth. What you have is the religious equivalent of a fan theory.

Which just happens to agree with science and history. Try to find just ONE thing which supports your false judgment or acknowledge that it's too high a standard for those who believe in evolutionism.

Do you think this is going to be the remotest bit convincing to me? Seriously, what is up with people who think quoting the Bible is going to make me stop being an atheist? You think I haven't read the Bible? Honestly, it just comes across as smug arrogance, and no one likes that.

Christians are compelled to share their future with anyone who can find saving faith in Jesus, especially since we wouldn't want our worst enemy to succumb to the wiles of the Devil.

 

[Kylie]

1Co 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

So what? The Bible says that non-believers don't believe the Bible because they are non-believers. So? That doesn't make it true.

Why do you think I've been online for so many years in order to tell unbelievers of their sure fate? My view AGREES with every discovered Truth of Scripture science and history.

Scripture science and history isn't actual science and history.

Which just happens to agree with science and history. Try to find just ONE thing which supports your false judgment or acknowledge that it's too high a standard for those who believe in evolutionism.

Of course you would say that you think it agrees with reality.

But it doesn't.

Christians are compelled to share their future with anyone who can find saving faith in Jesus, especially since we wouldn't want our worst enemy to succumb to the wiles of the Devil.

So you think your worldview overrides other people's wishes to live their own life without being blasted by religious advertising?

 

[the iconoclast]

Yes. Genesis 1 presents a chronological sequence.


Unfortunately, Genesis 2 also presents a chronological sequence, and the two do not agree.

Hey hey kylie wow back again, dont worry we have plenty of time to chat.

You aint going no where!

Excellant we agree, we have chronological order in chapter 1 and chapter 2. The chronological order is relevant.

It is also perfectly possible to interpret that as saying that there were no plants because God hadn't made them yet. There is NOTHING in those lines to show that God had already created them but just hadn't put them there yet.

Sure is.

Gen 1:24-25

And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds:."

God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.


We have established that it is indeed agree a chronological order. Now something interesting when we go back.

Gen 1:11
Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.

Yet

Gen 2:5
Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground,



In Gen 1:11 we clearly see God creating vegetation and seed bearing plants yet they hadnt formed on earth yet till 2:5 and the first watering. Explain to me why this is not a similiar case with Gen 1:25 and Gen 2:19? (ie they were created but not present yet?

I think that if all you have is speculation, you aren't going to convince me.

Are you looking to be convinced? Im curious, why do you come to Christian forums?

You come here alot!?! Although you are very welcome

I am not quote mining. I am pointing out the context of the passages of Genesis 2, because I am showing how the passages are arranged relative to other passages. For example, I am pointing out that the passage where God creates Man is BEFORE the passage where he creates animals.

I still accuse you of mine quoting and am not satisfied with this answer.

Context are the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood.

Fully understood is the problem you seem to have.

Gen 2:1-2
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Gen 2 is centered around adam, eve and the garden of eden.

We agree gen 1 and 2 are of a chronological order. My position is to suggest 2:19 is not continued earthly creation. They were already created in Gen 1.

You seem to be suggesting the writer of the book made a blunder and made two contradictory statements, that nobody except you could see for thousands of years!

Show me how you quote in context?

I am also pointing out that the fact that the two passages are arranged like this is important to the overall narrative structure of what is being said in Genesis 2.

How is it important? What is being said?

God creates Man, and then decides that this man needs a companion. If God is going to try to create animals to serve as companions for Man, then these animals MUST be created AFTER the man is.

Well lets recap.

Genesis 1:25
And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind: and God saw that it was good.

All it says was God made the animals etc.

To make is to form (something) by putting parts together or combining substances; create. This verse does not imply they are on earth yet?

Your arguement is starting to fall apart.

Ps
Before we hit genesis 2:19 we have this passage.

2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.

What do you think the context is here?

And then, when none of the animals is a satisfactory companion, God creates woman - again, the narrative requires this to

If we look at the isv bible we get a little more light

Genesis 2:19
International standard version

After the LORD God formed from the ground every wild animal and every bird that flies, he brought each of them to the man to see what he would call it. Whatever the man called each living creature became its name.

When it says 'and out of the ground' it is eluding to the method God had created them?

This passage is merely 'remember those animals God had formed from the ground, God brings them to Adam for naming'.

It was obvious by the start of the sentence but you are looking for anything, arent you?

Show me how this passage is continued creation or not my explanation?

So when you said "origin" you meant "Garden of Eden"? Why didn't you just say that? Please be clear in what you say.

Icon - "Chapter 2 suggests we have entered the origin for the garden of eden".

I said origin because the word means the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived. The beginning of the chapter 2 is the origin of the garden of eden. The point where something begins. Unless you suffer from mental gymnastics with that word?

Two separate creations? So God didn't like the one in Gen 1 and decided to start over? This idea certainly seems to be a stretch.

Why does it seem to be a stretch?

God says, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."

He does NOT say, "It is not good that the man is alone, luckily I made some critters earlier, and I'll see if he likes them."

Are you suggesting the writer made an error?

Are you suggesting the writer put 2 contradictory passages in and could not see it?

Do you think you are clever?

I think you are grasping at straws (misrepresentation) and quote mining.

What proof do you want for the existance of God? What method would satisfy?

Not at all. It is your claim that the Bible says God made the animals actually means God was implementing animals that had previously been made that is the mental gymnastics.

Why is that hard for you to grasp?

Do you actually expect me to believe that? You just want to convince me that your speculation is right.

I want you to come to Christ!

At the end of the day we both want each other to be convinced of each others arguement.

Your atheist faith is built on thoughts and reasoning of men. My Christian faith is built on personal experience and a relationship with God.

I know there is a God. How do you know there is not?

Well, if someone says what happened, and then they tell the story again but there are changes in the order that events happened, I don't start trying to figure out how both stories could be right. I figure that one or both of the stories is made up.

I disagree with your position. I see no contradiction and charge you with misrepresentation, and quote mining.

No I'm not.

Show me how you did not take gen 2:19 out of context?

We need some back and forth. You wont be let of the hook so easily. You will now have to prove your point rather than just making statements?

Im on to you.

True. And I haven't done it. I have ALWAYS pointed out the context of the passages I quote from the Bible to show how the context has changed.

How has the context changed?



Homework
Was Adam made on the 6th day?

Cheers you

 

[the iconoclast]

So you think your worldview overrides other people's wishes to live their own life without being blasted by religious advertising?

What is religious advertising and are you being blasted?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This changes nothing.

The order is still:

1. God makes Man.
2. God makes Garden.
3. God decides that man should not be alone and makes animals as companions.
4. Animals are unsuitable companions, God makes woman.

This directly contradicts Genesis 1, where the order is:

1. God makes plants on the third day.
2. God makes swimming animals and flying animals on the fifth day.
3. God makes animals of the earth and both man and woman on the sixth day.

Your attempts to claim that Eve was born spiritually at the same time as Adam are pure speculation, and also create an inconsistency. If God knew he would have to create Eve as a companion, why did he first try all the animals as companions when he knew they would not work?

Also, Genesis 2 makes iot clear that it is a PHYSICAL birth being described, not a spiritual one, as you claim it to be.

that's the most ridiculous interpretation I have ever seen.

Let's see what chapter 2 actually says...

"Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed"

So it is clear that man was not formed before the garden..... Since the garden had already been planted and man was then put in it.....

Now the other misconceptions...

"Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them"

So it is clear all the other animals had already been formed, they were at this time simply brought to Adam to be named........

Both align perfectly except in the minds of those that NEED a reason to reject truth.....

 

[Kylie]

Excellant we agree, we have chronological order in chapter 1 and chapter 2. The chronological order is relevant.

Relevant, and contradictory. Not only contradictory with science, but with the other chapter as well.

In Gen 1:11 we clearly see God creating vegetation and seed bearing plants yet they hadnt formed on earth yet till 2:5 and the first watering. Explain to me why this is not a similiar case with Gen 1:25 and Gen 2:19? (ie they were created but not present yet?

You are arguing semantics. If something has not been made, it does not exist.

I still accuse you of mine quoting and am not satisfied with this answer.

Context are the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood.

Quote mining is when someone takes a quote by itself and ignores all the other lines around it. I have never done that. I have done the exact opposite - pointed out how the quotes around it contradict it.

Fully understood is the problem you seem to have.

Gen 2 is centered around adam, eve and the garden of eden.

And it contradicts the order given in Gen 1.

We agree gen 1 and 2 are of a chronological order. My position is to suggest 2:19 is not continued earthly creation. They were already created in Gen 1.

Your argument that "formed" means something different than "created" is not supported. You are simply claiming that they are different. A person reading these chapters would be unlikely to reach the same conclusion you have.

You seem to be suggesting the writer of the book made a blunder and made two contradictory statements, that nobody except you could see for thousands of years!

HA! I never said I was the first one. People have been pointing out this blunder for ages.

Show me how you quote in context?

By pointing out a passage and then referring to other passages in the same chapter and the next chapter.

How is it important? What is being said?

If you had bothered to actually read my post, you would have seen that I answered that question in the very next sentence. Are you deliberately ignoring me?

Well lets recap.

Genesis 1:25
And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind: and God saw that it was good.

All it says was God made the animals etc.

To make is to form (something) by putting parts together or combining substances; create. This verse does not imply they are on earth yet?

Then you are saying that God FORMED the animals in Gen 1:25, which is before he made Adam and Eve.

Ps
Before we hit genesis 2:19 we have this passage.

2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.

What do you think the context is here?

I think it's the claim, "This is really what happened" being used to get people to believe by assuring them that it is true. Without evidence, assurances are meaningless.

If we look at the isv bible we get a little more light

Are the other versions of the Bible imperfect?

Genesis 2:19
International standard version

After the LORD God formed from the ground every wild animal and every bird that flies, he brought each of them to the man to see what he would call it. Whatever the man called each living creature became its name.

When it says 'and out of the ground' it is eluding to the method God had created them?

Unfortunately, here is does not say that God formed them until AFTER he had made Adam.

Now, if the passage said, "And out of the ground the LORD God had previously formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air..." then I would grant you this point. But it doesn't say this.

This passage is merely 'remember those animals God had formed from the ground, God brings them to Adam for naming'.

There's nothing in the passage that indicates this is the correct interpretation.

It was obvious by the start of the sentence but you are looking for anything, arent you?

Seems to me that you are insisting that this can be the only correct interpretation because otherwise you'd have to admit that the Bible is flawed.

Show me how this passage is continued creation or not my explanation?

There's nothing in the Bible to support your conclusion. Somebody reading Genesis 1 would not assume that God created the animals but then kept them unmade so he could bring them forth later. Indeed, Genesis 1 states very clearly that the Earth and the water BRING THEM FORTH, and that happens BEFORE God made Adam and Eve.

Icon - "Chapter 2 suggests we have entered the origin for the garden of eden".

I said origin because the word means the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived. The beginning of the chapter 2 is the origin of the garden of eden. The point where something begins. Unless you suffer from mental gymnastics with that word?

The way you phrased it was rather awkward. What you meant was "Chapter 2 suggests we have started the origin story for the garden of eden."

One does not usually speaking of entering a story.

Why does it seem to be a stretch?

Because there's nothing in there to suggest that God was starting over.

Are you suggesting the writer made an error?

Yes.

Are you suggesting the writer put 2 contradictory passages in and could not see it?

I'm suggesting that the Bible was written by collecting many different stories, so it is natural that they will not all be consistent.

Do you think you are clever?

I'm not so blinded by religious belief that I have to decide on my conclusion before looking at the evidence.

I think you are grasping at straws (misrepresentation) and quote mining.

You show me where I quote mined.

What proof do you want for the existance of God? What method would satisfy?

A perfectly consistent Bible would be a start. Also, a passage that clearly and unambiguously describes scientific knowledge that could not possibly be known by the people of the time - perhaps something about the construction of atoms. I remember reading something on here about the movement of the planets and how the sun shines because of nuclear fusion. If the Bible spoke of that, I would find it pretty convincing.

Why is that hard for you to grasp?

Because, as I have said already, reading the Bible does not support this idea.

You make a big deal about Genesis 1:25 to suipport your claim that God created the animals from the earth but they remained unmade until they were brought before Adam. However, you seem to have completely missed Genesis 1:24 which states very clearly that the Earth was bringing forth every creature and God saw that it was good. Can't do that if the animals were still unmade!

I want you to come to Christ!

Because you are so arrogant that you think that just because you like your beliefs that everyone will like them. And you are also so arrogant that you don't care about what I actually want for myself, but instead you are convinced that your way is the best way.

At the end of the day we both want each other to be convinced of each others arguement.

No, I don't want you to be an atheist. I just want you to be able to think critically and also understand that viewing the Bible as a flawed work of man doesn't mean you have to stop being a Christian.

Your atheist faith is built on thoughts and reasoning of men. My Christian faith is built on personal experience and a relationship with God.

I know there is a God. How do you know there is not?

He came to me and proved that he didn't exist in such a way as to be indisputable.

I disagree with your position. I see no contradiction and charge you with misrepresentation, and quote mining.

Show me how you did not take gen 2:19 out of context?

Because I look at it in the context of Genesis 2:18 which clearly indicates that God formed the animals AFTER he had made man, and also in the context of Genesis 1:20 and Genesis 1:24 which clearly show that God brings forth the animals from the water and from the Earth - BRING FORTH, so they weren't kept in an unmade form as you claim - and then God doesn't create humans until Genesis 1:27.

We need some back and forth. You wont be let of the hook so easily. You will now have to prove your point rather than just making statements?

Im on to you.

Ha. You're the one who has been relying on a totally unsupported interpretation of the Bible for your position. I have constantly been providing passages to support my claim.

How has the context changed?

Are you kidding me?

In Genesis 1, it says God made the animals and then he made man and woman at the same time.

In Genesis 2, it says God made man, then he made the animals, and then he created woman.

Are you deliberately ignoring everything I say?

Homework
Was Adam made on the 6th day?

According to Genesis 1, yes.

Homework for you:

On what day did the whales and winged fowl appear swimming in the oceans and flying in the skies?

 

[Kylie]

What is religious advertising and are you being blasted?

You really don't know what I am talking about? Here, let me show you.

Why do you think I've been online for so many years in order to tell unbelievers of their sure fate? My view AGREES with every discovered Truth of Scripture science and history.

...

Christians are compelled to share their future with anyone who can find saving faith in Jesus, especially since we wouldn't want our worst enemy to succumb to the wiles of the Devil.

The person I was speaking to was literally saying he wants to spread the word of his religion to everyone possible. Even you've done it:

I want you to come to Christ!

At the end of the day we both want each other to be convinced of each others arguement.