Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You're preaching to the choir here, chief.
I know there's no contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
The two chapters make up a frame story (a story within a story).
This thread is for those who think otherwise.
In spite of your caption, or with respect to it?I dont care about your beef with Nietsche.
Then please get your Bible out* and read Genesis 2 for yourself, and see if it squares with evolution.
* I'm almost positive you "wouldn't know and wouldn't cares" of the world secretly have a Bible in your house.
I do not think so. Let the Spirit rather than man or intellect lead....uh, no, I admit that Genesis 2 (and 3) is a representational, spiritualized 'polemical story' aimed right at the heart of all of those backward mythologies that were held by the surrounding cultures and nations existing during the time in which it was written. Of course, Genesis 1 does the same thing, but from another angle altogether.
See Conrad Hyers for more on this.............................. Blessings, AV!
It is relevant to:This thread is only relevant to Bible believers then, correct?
Thus anyone who says that.For those of you who say Genesis 2 is another account of creation
Maybe I'm wrong, but atheists seem to be more vociferous about it than Bible allegorists.DavidPT said:And not relevant to atheists, correct? The latter doesn't even believe in one creation account, let alone two.
Okay, you get a rating point for this part!And when you do that, it's enough to make some people want to read a MAD magazine backwards, and exclaim it as they do it!
There are reasons people stiff arm the Bible. And dismiss it.No bible in my house and wouldnt waste my time reading it if it where one there.
But I already know that genesis 1 and 2 are creation myths, they arent meant to be scientific texts and therefore its stupid treating them like they are. Literal interpretation is a very modern thing, the authors of theese myths would never treat them like that. They would also have a very different idea what "truth" means then you. A story may be true without being factual.
The ToE is a description of physical reality, the bible contain religious texts that deal with spritual things, not science.
Moreover, as far my research tells me, Genesis 1, 2, and 3 aren't indicating "how" God made the world or how long it actually took; rather it's telling us who made Heaven and Earth and all that is in it. It's not science, nor was in intended to be.
But, when you insist that it could be, should be, might be compared to today's insights about Natural History and the progress of Evolution of life on earth, then you're in effect 'bending' the context to meet a modern purpose that it wasn't originally written to address.
Actually the Bible does say how God did it, but not in academic parlance.Good points ... intention matters ...
It looks like he gave the general chronology in chapter 1, ... and filled in some of the details in chapter 2 ...
The contraditions between the two creation accounts that were merged together can be seen here:
2 Biblical Stories of Creation
Thats based on Genesis 2 having the divine article, the covenant name of God while Gen. 1 is Elohim (God Almighty). The names of God in the OT relect something about the relationship with God implied. He told Moses that the Patriarchs knew him as Elshaddai, but you know me as Yahweh. The covenant had expanded, Adam was in covenant as well.For those of you who say Genesis 2 is another account of creation, are you admitting that the Bible says God created man before He created the apes?
Actually the Bible does say how God did it, but not in academic parlance.
It says He "spoke" the universe into existence.
Children can understand it ... but not modern academians, who want to delve deeper into areas that are beyond their limited comprehension.
Hmm, this is a non-sequitur.therfore evolution is a lie of the devil that is not supported by Scripture."
What does God's name have to do with it?Thats based on Genesis 2 having the divine article, the covenant name of God while Gen. 1 is Elohim (God Almighty). The names of God in the OT relect something about the relationship with God implied. He told Moses that the Patriarchs knew him as Elshaddai, but you know me as Yahweh. The covenant had expanded, Adam was in covenant as well.
How is that?No one is saying anything of the sort. Those who say there are two creation accounts in Genesis are saying that there are two creation accounts in Genesis.
How is that?
Genesis 1 describes the world. Genesis 2 describes the garden where no plants had yet grown for man had not yet been put there to tend it.
Just another incorrect assumption on man’s part to think there is any contradiction.
The use of specific names reflects the overall message. It's called JEPD' for Jehovah', Elohim, Pentetauch, and the Deuteronomist. Deuteronomy is thought to have been written after the exile. The reason being the language used is thought to reflect the time period is was compiled. Genesis 2 isnt a seperate account, it's a continuation of the original creation and just overlaps a bit.What does God's name have to do with it?
Who was Jesus' disciple? Matthew or Levi?
And just to be facetious to make a point: let's say a different person wrote each and every single word found in Genesis 2.
From kings to priests to farmers.
Not one single word would be any different than if Moses would have written it (which, by the way, he didn't).
No need. Try rereading genesis 2 and pay attention that it is the garden being discussed, not the world.Google "J"and "El" texts of the bible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?