The Creationist Corner

[KWCrazy]

Your claim that the account beginning at Genesis 2:4 is not a creation account contradicts the text of the Bible itself.

It's not, and if you had any degree of comprehension you would know that. Chapter two goes into some specifics regarding the creation of man. It refers to things that happened as the world was created, but it very clearly states in chapter one that the creation was complete. Seriously, this borders on illiteracy.

If you really want to learn, try reading an in-depth explanation, like this.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

This is the problem with a public school education. They do not understand that even what they call myths has an application in our lives as representing universal archetypes.

You've made several assumptions about me, here. About where I was educated, about what I understand myths to be (and, in order to do so, you've had to actually ignore what I've said on the subject), and about what I know of psychology and Jungian archetypes.

I evidently can't persuade you to engage me in conversation, because I don't share your particular faith, but I would politely ask you not to create a fictitious version of me to criticise to others. If you wish to address me, I would appreciate it if you addressed me. If you wish to know what I know of a subject, please ask rather than assuming and acting as if your assumption had validity.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It's not, and if you had any degree of comprehension you would know that.

I quoted where the Bible specifically contradicts what you said.

If you really want to learn, try reading an in-depth explanation, like this.

As a reminder, your statement was "How, then, could [Genesis 2] be a creation account? It is not."

To quote the source you yourself have just provided:

1. • A more particular account of man's creation, as the summary of the whole work, ver. 4 - 7

"account of [...] creation" and "creation account" are synonyms. There are two different accounts, both describing creation. There are two creation accounts. The Bible itself describes the account in Genesis 2 as an account of the creation. The link you provided describes it as an account of the creation. The link you provided uses some variation of the word "creation" 3 separate times when elucidating on the content of verses 4-7.

Every source, including the one you have provided, agrees with me that Genesis 2 is a creation account. Your assertion that it is not a creation account is contradicted by the Bible, and by the source that you cited in order to support that assertion.

 

[KWCrazy]

To quote the source you yourself have just provided:
"A more particular account of man's creation, as the summary of the whole work, ver. 4 - 7"

Yes, it deals specifically with man's creation. It is not a separate account of the creation of the world. Genesis 1 describes the creation. Genesis two shows how man fits within the creation. The animals were brought to Adam to name. They already existed. This is nothing more that a feeble attempt by those antagonistic to the Word to discredit it. It's not an original argument. I've heard it dozens, maybe hundreds of times before. When it fails because people like me actually understand what's being said, you'll just use it again hoping to convince someone else that their Bible is wrong.

We know who you serve, even if you don't. We know where your arguments originate and who they serve. We are not deceived. We live in a world where principalities struggle against principalities. In the end your side will lose, but there's no telling how many you'll be able to cause to stumble along your way.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Yes, it deals specifically with man's creation.

Then it is a creation account, as I said, and as you denied.

It is not a separate account of the creation of the world.

Firstly, this is a straw man, as I did not claim that it was an account of the creation of the world. I said that it was a creation account, something you have now admitted.

Secondly, while Genesis 2 is focused on Adam, it does give an account of the creation of more than just man - the heavens (2:4), the earth (2:4), water (2:6), man (2:7), trees (2:9), animals (2:19), and woman (2:22) are all described as being created by God, in that order. We can quibble over whether or not these things are enough to constitute "the world", if you like, but the creation of more than just Adam is described.

The animals were brought to Adam to name. They already existed.

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.

That clearly says that God fashioned the animals out of earth. It also says that he brought them to Adam, but if you deny that it says that he created them, then you are denying the very words written in the Bible. Again.

 

[rockytopva]

You will never convince me that the eye is something that has evolved...

Cornea - Transparent layer that covers the front of the eye. Must be lubricated with an organic chemistry to keep from drying out.
Lens - Bends and refracts light
Ciliary muscle - Provides focus
Aqueous humour - Fluid that holds a proper pressure and provides nutrients for the cornea and lens
Optic nerve - Takes information from the rods and cones and sends it to the mind.

The mind takes signals from the eye and builds a structure of reality...

22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! - Matthew 6

And to describe the metaphors behind this scripture...

1. Eye - In this case your imagination
2. Single - Focused in on a mission or a life's direction
3. Light - If the imagination is good - The whole body is full of light (in this case faith, hope, charity, joy)
4. Evil - Focused on evil imaginations
5. Darkness - The opposite of spiritual light - fear, depression, hatred, sorrow

All of which takes an incredible amount of input and processing. If the eyeball was not perfectly shaped there would be at the most a blur and nothing for the cones and rods inside the eye to sense and report to the mind.

 

[Kylie]

What does it matter?

You guys already called them "creation myths" (plural).

So whether there is only one, two, or more -- it looks like you're minds are made up.

I'll take this as an admission that you can't answer the question.

 

[Kylie]

It is just not a problem for me, I just do not see a conflict. The first rule of understanding the Bible is context, you have to look at who the Bible was written to. THEN you can look to see how the Bible applies to us, the secondary audience. The people at the time believed the mustard seed was the smallest of seeds.

This doesn't sound like the sort of mistake that an omniscient god would make...

 

[joshua 1 9]

This doesn't sound like the sort of mistake that an omniscient god would make...

God does not make mistakes. As I explained to you, the Bible has to be taken in context. People like to quote the Bible out of context to make whatever sort of claim they are trying to make. You can find many pratts on the internet, just as you can find the rebuttal for all those arguments.

 

[KWCrazy]

in that order.

This is where you are flat out wrong.
Genesis 2:2-3 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.
Note that this is all past tense.

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.
Summary statement.

5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth 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,
6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.
On day 2, the earth was still barren. Day three brought trees bearing fruit and grasses and seed bearing plants. Not that it speaks of steams or mist watering the ground, but no rain yet.

7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
This happened on day 6.

8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Eden was planted and created prior to the creation of man, which is exactly as recorded in Genesis 1. As stated above, this garden was already completed when God created Adam and placed him there.

19 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; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
Note the past tense. Your claim that the animals were created after man or that there is any difference in the order of creation is absolutely and intentionally false. Anyone who reads the second chapter of Genesis knows this. YOU know this and yet here you are on a Christian website attacking that Bible with deliberate falsehoods.

Sadly, I suspect you will go on spreading your deliberate falsehoods hoping that you'll be successful in undermining the religious beliefs of others.

 

[Kylie]

God does not make mistakes. As I explained to you, the Bible has to be taken in context. People like to quote the Bible out of context to make whatever sort of claim they are trying to make. You can find many pratts on the internet, just as you can find the rebuttal for all those arguments.

Translation: You reinterpret the Bible so it fits what you want it to say.

Isn't it funny that whenever someone points out some point where science and the Bible appear to contradict, the answer is always that you have to interpret the Bible in a certain way? Doesn't it tell you something important that you are never told that you have to interpret the science in a certain way to fit with a literal Bible? It's always the Bible that is adjusted to fit with science.

That says a lot, doesn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Translation: You reinterpret the Bible so it fits what you want it to say.

We reinterpret the Bible to bring It back where It belongs, after unbelievers twist It into a pretzel.

We give It Its dignity back.

Isn't it funny that whenever someone points out some point where science and the Bible appear to contradict, the answer is always that you have to interpret the Bible in a certain way?

You have to interpret the Bible in a certain way, whether science is involved or not.

Doesn't it tell you something important that you are never told that you have to interpret the science in a certain way to fit with a literal Bible?

Nope.

It's always the Bible that is adjusted to fit with science.

Where science disagrees with the Bible, science is wrong.

That says a lot, doesn't it?

I hope so.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Note that this is all past tense.

Yes, just like Genesis 1.

Summary statement.

Indeed. As per the link you provided, the account of man's creation as a summary of the whole work begins on Genesis 2:4.

On day 2, the earth was still barren. Day three brought trees bearing fruit and grasses and seed bearing plants. Not that it speaks of steams or mist watering the ground, but no rain yet.

Right, so you agree that Genesis 2 is going back into the past and giving an account of things that happened during the 6 days of creation.

This happened on day 6.

That's certainly what the first account says.

Eden was planted and created prior to the creation of man, which is exactly as recorded in Genesis 1.

I have at no point disputed that Eden was created after Man. If you read back over what I said, you'll note that I didn't say that anything was written as being created in 2:8.

However, as you'll note, 2:9 does say: "The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground" which is saying the God creates something.

Note the past tense.

Genesis 1 is also written in the past tense. Genesis 1:21:

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good

Both accounts are written in the past tense, because they are both written after the events are alleged to have occurred.

Your claim that the animals were created after man or that there is any difference in the order of creation is absolutely and intentionally false. Anyone who reads the second chapter of Genesis knows this. YOU know this and yet here you are on a Christian website attacking that Bible with deliberate falsehoods.

I do not "know" this. I can be persuaded that it is the case by a cogent argument, but pointing out that the second chapter is written in the same style as the first chapter is not a cogent argument for why they should be differentiated in meaning. All the statements in Genesis 2 are written in the same style. If I am to believe that some of them are to be taken as being presented in chronological order and some are not, I will need a good explanation of what the difference between the two kinds of statements are - how I can distinguish them.

At the moment it appears that you are disregarding the text of the Bible in order to make it say what you wish it to say, rather than accepting what it actually does say.

 

[Kylie]

We reinterpret the Bible to bring It back where It belongs, after unbelievers twist It into a pretzel.

You don't get very far by holding the Bible up as your conclusion and then trying to force reality to fit it.

We give It Its dignity back.

Dignity is not the same thing as truth.

You have to interpret the Bible in a certain way, whether science is involved or not.

And funnily enough, there have been countless times when science has made a discovery and then believers have jumped in saying, "Oh yes, but the Bible said that all the time," while pointing to verses which can (with some mental gymnastics) be interpreted to mean what science has recently discovered.

Funny how the believers never once are able to reach those conclusions until AFTER science tells them what they should be looking for.

Can you give me even a SINGLE example of when a passage in the Bible was held up as a God-given truth before scientific information was found to confirm it?

Nope.

It should. The fact that it doesn't would seem to indicate a severe cognitive dissonance.

Where science disagrees with the Bible, science is wrong.

And yet you (and all other creationists) have always been utterly incapable of pointing out the point where science made a mistake. You guys have never once said, "Oh, here you used a minus sign when it should have been plus," or, "I think the decimal point is in the wrong spot here."

No, it's always nothing more than, "The science says something other than what my old book says is true!" And that's all you've got.

I hope so.

It doesn't say what you think it says.

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't get very far by holding the Bible up as your conclusion and then trying to force reality to fit it.

And neither do you by denying most of reality itself.

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

And funnily enough, there have been countless times when science has made a discovery and then believers have jumped in saying, "Oh yes, but the Bible said that all the time,"

Which is as it should be.

First the discovery, then the confirmation.

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

God didn't embed these Easter eggs into His creation, then give us the Bible to point to them.

He embedded Easter eggs into his creation, then gives us empowered men & women (scientists) to hunt for them.

Some discoveries are dispensational, or "time sensitive."

That means they lie dormant through history, then are revealed at the proper time.

Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

And yet you (and all other creationists) have always been utterly incapable of pointing out the point where science made a mistake.

Einstein once divided by zero; and Aristotle's science stunted the growth of science for almost two thousand years.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Translation: You reinterpret the Bible so it fits what you want it to say.

Could be that you see it that way.

Isn't it funny that whenever someone points out some point where science and the Bible appear to contradict, the answer is always that you have to interpret the Bible in a certain way? Doesn't it tell you something important that you are never told that you have to interpret the science in a certain way to fit with a literal Bible? It's always the Bible that is adjusted to fit with science. That says a lot, doesn't it?

There is a difference between the physical and the spiritual. Science works off of the Physical and Religion works off of the Spiritual. At times the Physical and the Spiritual do seem to contradict themselves and they can be difficult to reconcile.

Look at the story that Jesus tells about the parable of the children in the market place.

“To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others:
‘We played the flute for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge
and you did not mourn.’
For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.” ’ But wisdom is proved right by her actions.””
Matthew 11:16-18 (Luke 7:31-32)

In both Matthew and Luke this little parable is found wedged between Jesus talking about John the Baptist and Him expressing frustration at the Pharisees fault-finding paradigm and impossible-to-pleasyness. We have science and we have religion and they were both created by God and they both are designed to lead you do God. But a stumbling block needs to be turned into a stepping stone and so far you cannot seem to be able to do that. If you are a good steward of what you have then more will be given, but if you do not properly handle what you have then even that will be taken away from you.

12"For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. 13"Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.14"In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, 'YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND; YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE;…

There are people that only go to a church for a funeral and for a wedding. In the parable Jesus says this is all they will get. If they do not accept either message then God does not give them anymore then that. One is happy the other is sad. It maybe difficult to reconcile the two.

Jesus says that wisdom is justified by her children. The ministry of John and Jesus were very different but you look at the fruit and what they both are able to produce despite their differences. Science and Religion both produce good fruit even if for some they are very different. For other like me I have no problem to reconcile their differences.

 

[joshua 1 9]

It's always the Bible that is adjusted to fit with science.

That says a lot, doesn't it?

The Bible represents the heart and the emotions. Science represents the mind and intellect. In some ways the primitive brain at the core is better then the advanced brain that has evolved on the outside of the primitive brain. But they can be hard and difficult to reconcile. Then on top of that you do not want to even get into how male and female have been split and are trying to be united back together again. What happens when the male wants to represent the mind and the intellect and the women wants to represent love and the emotions? Or the other way around as you are trying to represent science and the intellect and the advanced brain and you say you have a conflict with emotions, love, religion and the more primitive brain. Yet you need to reconcile them and turn your stumbling blocks into stepping stones.

The Hebrews by the way give us our religion and the Greeks gave us science.
Look at how extreme the conflict was at the time of the Holocaust during WW2 in Germany.

 

[KWCrazy]

Yes, just like Genesis 1.

No, it references what had been revealed in Genesis 1.

Indeed. As per the link you provided, the account of man's creation as a summary of the whole work begins on Genesis 2:4.

The details of man's creation does not change the explanation of the creation given in Genesis 1.

Right, so you agree that Genesis 2 is going back into the past and giving an account of things that happened during the 6 days of creation.

No, Genesis 2 REFERENCES the creation as described in Genesis 1 and goes into greater detail about things pertinent to man's creation. it does not change or conflict with anything.

-

I have at no point disputed that Eden was created after Man.

Eden was created BEFORE man, because the newly created man was placed there by God.

If you read back over what I said, you'll note that I didn't say that anything was written as being created in 2:8.

Nothing was being created in Genesis 2. The order of creation was not changed in Genesis 2. Genesis 2 does not conflict with Genesis 1.

However, as you'll note, 2:9 does say: "The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground" which is saying the God creates something.

You are conveniently leaving out the context, which proves that what you are saying is deliberately false.
8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The garden had been planted and was, in fact, fully developed when God put man into the garden; which happened immediately after man was created because hanging around in mid air wasn't conducive to God's plan. Obviously, the trees were a part of the garden and the garden had been planted. It isn't hard to understand. What requires a deliberate distortion of Scripture, a refusal to acknowledge specific verses, and the addition of false information is the narrative that Genesis 2 is a contradictory creation account. It isn't, and you know this.

Both accounts are written in the past tense, because they are both written after the events are alleged to have occurred.

When you say that the events are only "alleged" to have occurred, you are demonstrating your disbelief in the very Scriptures on which you are basing your entire argument.

I do not "know" this. I can be persuaded that it is the case by a cogent argument

I disagree. When the argument is contrary to your goal of discrediting the Scriptures you ignore the argument. Either you don't know the difference between and active verb and a past perfect tense or you are ignoring the fact that the text represents an action that had already taken place.

It's laughable that you, who deliberately ignore verses which demonstrate the pre-existence of things you say are being newly created would accuse me of incompletely referencing the text. Anyone who reads this knows who left out and distorted text to achieve their point. You point was to come to a Christian website and attack the Scriptures. Mine was simply to show you how your distortion of what was written is inconsistent with the text.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No, it references what had been revealed in Genesis 1.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying there. My statement was that Genesis 1 is written in the past tense.

The details of man's creation does not change the explanation of the creation given in Genesis 1.

I haven't said that anything has changed.

No, Genesis 2 REFERENCES the creation as described in Genesis 1 and goes into greater detail about things pertinent to man's creation.

And one account which references the same events as another account is a different account of the same events. You have already conceded this to be true in this thread.

it does not change or conflict with anything.

It doesn't alter anything. I don't know how such a thing would even be possible. It does, however, conflict with the first account.

Eden was created BEFORE man, because the newly created man was placed there by God.

Sorry, that was a slip of the keyboard. I meant before, not after.

Nothing was being created in Genesis 2. The order of creation was not changed in Genesis 2. Genesis 2 does not conflict with Genesis 1.

Simply stating this to be the case is not an argument for it being the case. If you want to argue that this is the case, then you will have to present a cogent argument, rather than an assertion by fiat.

Obviously, the trees were a part of the garden and the garden had been planted.

I would say that the text itself makes it obvious that the trees were not a part of the garden until after Adam was there.

When you say that the events are only "alleged" to have occurred, you are demonstrating your disbelief in the very Scriptures on which you are basing your entire argument.

Given that there's a notice to the left of each of my posts which identifies me as an atheist, I can't see how it's ever been any kind of secret that I don't accept the Biblical creation accounts as factual. The fact that I've argued quite explicitly against their veracity when taken into consideration with current scientific knowledge should be enough evidence that I don't accept them as factual, without any kind of additional demonstration required, I'd have thought.

When the argument is contrary to your goal of discrediting the Scriptures you ignore the argument.

I have answered every point put to me. If you feel I have ignored any of your points, please re-state them and I will address them.

Either you don't know the difference between and active verb and a past perfect tense or you are ignoring the fact that the text represents an action that had already taken place.

I know the English language, and I am ignoring nothing. I am simply going by what the text itself says.

I would say that the difference in our approaches is that you're starting from the (fairly modern) position of Bible literalism and assuming that the verses contained in the Bible must be both completely true and completely non-metaphorical, whereas I am reading them from the perspective of someone who doesn't believe that they are true (although who is open to persuasion via cogent, evidence-based arguments) and who accepts that at the time it was written the Bible was intended to be seen as and would have been interpreted as often metaphorical. Which one of us (if either) this allows to have a more objective view of the text can be for anybody reading our discussion to decide.

 

[Kylie]

And neither do you by denying most of reality itself.

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

Yeah, once again, quoting an old book at me is not going to convince me that it is reality.

The Bible is not reality.

Which is as it should be.

First the discovery, then the confirmation.

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

God didn't embed these Easter eggs into His creation, then give us the Bible to point to them.

He embedded Easter eggs into his creation, then gives us empowered men & women (scientists) to hunt for them.

Some discoveries are dispensational, or "time sensitive."

That means they lie dormant through history, then are revealed at the proper time.

Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

If these things are written in the Bible, then why is it that no one ever discovers these amazing things through Biblical study? You would think that if there really were so many truths in there that surely someone would have got at least one of them by now!

On the other hand, anyone can write down things so couched in metaphor that they can be interpreted in so many different ways that one of those ways can match up with reality. People have been doing that for ages. Nostradamus is only one famous example, there are countless others. And all of them were just spouting nonsense.

Einstein once divided by zero; and Aristotle's science stunted the growth of science for almost two thousand years.

Not what I am talking about.

Aristotle lacked a huge amount of information. And you got a source that Einstein divided by zero? Because he wasn't that bad at maths.

In any case, I don't see that religion was the thing that came along and fixed the mistake. Science has ALWAYS proved to be the best tool we have for finding out the facts about reality.