The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus Explained

[Der Alte]

Everything a man having the holy spirit says is true, because it comes from God, not the person speaking. No man having the holy spirit speaks of himself. * * *

Is it true that the sun literally sets, rises, go downs, or are the writers describing this from a human point of view?

Gen_28:11 And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took of the stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down in that place to sleep.

Mar_1:32 And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils.

Gen_15:12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.

Gen_15:17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.

Gen_19:23 The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.

Gen_32:31 And as he passed over Penuel the sun rose upon him, and he halted upon his thigh.

Exo_17:12 But Moses' hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.

Exo_22:3 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

Exo_22:26 If thou at all take thy neighbour's raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down:

Lev_22:7 And when the sun is down, he shall be clean, and shall afterward eat of the holy things; because it is his food.

Num_2:3 And on the east side toward the rising of the sun shall they of the standard of the camp of Judah pitch throughout their armies: and Nahshon the son of Amminadab shall be captain of the children of Judah.

Mat_13:6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.

Mar_16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

Luk_4:40 Now when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with divers diseases brought them unto him; and he laid his hands on every one of them, and healed them.

Eph_4:26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: ​

 

[cgaviria]

Is it true that the sun literally sets, rises, go downs, or are the writers describing this from a human point of view?

Gen_28:11 And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took of the stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down in that place to sleep.

Mar_1:32 And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils.

Gen_15:12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.

Gen_15:17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.

Gen_19:23 The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.

Gen_32:31 And as he passed over Penuel the sun rose upon him, and he halted upon his thigh.

Exo_17:12 But Moses' hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.

Exo_22:3 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

Exo_22:26 If thou at all take thy neighbour's raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down:

Lev_22:7 And when the sun is down, he shall be clean, and shall afterward eat of the holy things; because it is his food.

Num_2:3 And on the east side toward the rising of the sun shall they of the standard of the camp of Judah pitch throughout their armies: and Nahshon the son of Amminadab shall be captain of the children of Judah.

Mat_13:6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.

Mar_16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

Luk_4:40 Now when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with divers diseases brought them unto him; and he laid his hands on every one of them, and healed them.

Eph_4:26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: ​

Are you wiser than God to tell him how he should speak? He speaks however he pleases, and you should hope that he opens your understanding to understand his sayings.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Are you wiser than God to tell him how he should speak? He speaks however he pleases, and you should hope that he opens your understanding to understand his sayings.

God didn't write Genesis, a priest from the Persian period wrote it (according to Philip Davies) or the Hellenistic period (according to N.P. Lemche) so I think that we can disagree with the language he used.

 

[cgaviria]

God didn't write Genesis, a priest from the Persian period wrote it (according to Philip Davies) or the Hellenistic period (according to N.P. Lemche) so I think that we can disagree with the language he used.

You're ignorant of the fact that God has a Spirit that moves men to write as he gives utterance. As a man of the world you have no understanding of these things.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

You're ignorant of the fact that God has a Spirit that moves men to write as he gives utterance. As a man of the world you have no understanding of these things.

I didn't say that the authors weren't inspired to write what they did. Writing and thinking mythology was probably incredibly inspiring, detailing Yhwh's covenant with his people in the Torah was probably a very noble endeavour, the anonymous priest probably felt the awe attached to this honour.

 

[cgaviria]

I didn't say that the authors weren't inspired to write what they did. Writing and thinking mythology was probably incredibly inspiring, detailing Yhwh's covenant with his people in the Torah was probably a very noble endeavour, the anonymous priest probably felt the awe attached to this honour.

You have no idea what you're saying. When a man has the Spirit of God in him it speaks of its own voice in the mind of those that have it ,and it teaches and it opens understanding in their minds. It is a divine gift. These men wrote what they were told to write by the Holy Spirit telling them in their minds. This is how God has chosen to hide how he guides his people, through his Spirit that is hidden within those that have it.

 

[Hoghead1]

I think that Aelred made a very solid point that you should seriously consider, Cgaviria. First off, you have provided your theory of how divine inspiration works, your own theory of how Scripture was written. Whether or not yours is actually the case is a whole other matter. Quite a number of biblical scholars would strongly disagree with you.
I think the truth of the matter is that the Holy Spirit does not create a miracle by which we are no longer human and subject to error. And I am well aware there are far viable theories of how the Spirit works. Furthermore, since the latter part of the 19th century, biblical scholars have accepted the notion that Moses definitely did not write the Pentateuch. In addition, biblical scholarship honestly acknowledges that there are in fact major contradictions in Scripture. A major one is the Genesis account of creation, where two contradictory chronologies are presented. Gen. 1, where first animals are created, then man and woman together; Gen. 2, where first man is created, then animals, then woman. Careful linguistic study of the texts, which reveals two radically different literary styles strongly suggest two different authors from two different time periods. Gen.1 is assumed to be much later and was probably written by a priest. That the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness has long been adapted in the Christian community. After all, who believes in a flat earth, the Sun going round the earth, etc.

Another issue is the problem of the canon. What do you consider Bible and what not. Who here was truly inspired by the Spirit? Those that accept the Apocrypha or those who do not? Who decided what books belong in the Bible and what not? Should "Paul and the Acts of Teekel" be in the Bible or not? Why? Who here is properly inspired by the Spirit?

I realize you take Scripture to be inerrant. But that is based on you holding with the inerrancy theory of Scripture, a human-made system of speculations as to how God may be related to Scripture. Like any theory, it needs tested. I submit when you go on the hard data, this theory sadly fails.

 

[cgaviria]

I think that Aelred made a very solid point that you should seriously consider, Cgaviria. First off, you have provided your theory of how divine inspiration works, your own theory of how Scripture was written. Whether or not yours is actually the case is a whole other matter. Quite a number of biblical scholars would strongly disagree with you.
I think the truth of the matter is that the Holy Spirit does not create a miracle by which we are no longer human and subject to error. And I am well aware there are far viable theories of how the Spirit works. Furthermore, since the latter part of the 19th century, biblical scholars have accepted the notion that Moses definitely did not write the Pentateuch. In addition, biblical scholarship honestly acknowledges that there are in fact major contradictions in Scripture. A major one is the Genesis account of creation, where two contradictory chronologies are presented. Gen. 1, where first animals are created, then man and woman together; Gen. 2, where first man is created, then animals, then woman. Careful linguistic study of the texts, which reveals two radically different literary styles strongly suggest two different authors from two different time periods. Gen.1 is assumed to be much later and was probably written by a priest. That the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness has long been adapted in the Christian community. After all, who believes in a flat earth, the Sun going round the earth, etc.

Another issue is the problem of the canon. What do you consider Bible and what not. Who here was truly inspired by the Spirit? Those that accept the Apocrypha or those who do not? Who decided what books belong in the Bible and what not? Should "Paul and the Acts of Teekel" be in the Bible or not? Why? Who here is properly inspired by the Spirit?

I realize you take Scripture to be inerrant. But that is based on you holding with the inerrancy theory of Scripture, a human-made system of speculations as to how God may be related to Scripture. Like any theory, it needs tested. I submit when you go on the hard data, this theory sadly fails.

Not many people have the Holy Spirit, not many people understand how it actually works inside a person, not many people are even aware that it also imparts power, and not many people understand scripture to begin with, so it stands to conclude that such people will try to make reason of "divine inspiration" in terms of worldy wisdom. Throughout scripture we see various signs that occur when a person receives the Holy Spirit. Speaking in different languages, prophesying, gifts of that nature.

 

[OldShepherd]

.

 

[Hoghead1]

Well, Cigviria, I think you missed my main point. The inerrancy of Scripture is never once stated in Scripture. it is a human-based theory, part of the wisdom of the world, that has been debunked.

 

[cgaviria]

Well, Cigviria, I think you missed my main point. The inerrancy of Scripture is never once stated in Scripture. it is a human-based theory, part of the wisdom of the world, that has been debunked.

Clearly you do not understand what the Holy Spirit is or does. Did it occur to you that prophesies that the prophets of old spoke have come to pass? And that you cannot refute the powerful works and the many witnesses to the ministry of Jesus? And you cannot refute the very wisdom of the Law of God and its creation account. All these things testify about each other, and they testify concerning the power of the holy spirit, and it causing these men that wrote these books to write words that the holy spirit itself gave them to write.

 

[Hoghead1]

I hear you, Cigviria. Let me go into more detail. I do not think the Genesis account is correct. Upon careful study, I find it is two conflicting accounts, with two conflicting chronologies. In Gen. 1, first animals, then ma and women together; in Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. All attempts to fuse there two accounts into one have failed. Furthermore, the accounts are in vary different literary styles, representing two different authors from two different time periods. This does not lesser the status of Scripture in my eyes. For centuries, it has been known by believers that the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness, what with its flat earth and all. So it's no surprise we find this also to be the case with Genesis. And I could point to about 100 other contradictions in Scripture. Who Killed Goliath? David? Elhanan? Who? The Bible never describes the actual inspiration process. There are other viable theories of inspiration , other than the naïve assumption that God dictated it all word for word to purely passive scribes. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the Law of God. If you mean all those OT laws, other than the Ten Commandments, then yes, I do refute them. I don't think they are from God at all. For example, the legalization of slavery that we find in the OT. I also find the OT God to be brutal, unloving, merciless, and sadistic. Hence, I do not hold the OT is a complete revelation of the true nature of God. Also, the Bible contains no description as to what should be bible and what not. Who did that? The later church fathers, fallible human beings. Hence, we ended up two Bibles and a controversy over what should or should not be considered Scripture. So do you think the Apocrypha should or should not be in the Bible?
beingHnece, we ended up with two Bibles. So do you think the Aprcrapha shld or shold not be part of the Bible?

 

[cgaviria]

I hear you, Cigviria. Let me go into more detail. I do not think the Genesis account is correct. Upon careful study, I find it is two conflicting accounts, with two conflicting chronologies. In Gen. 1, first animals, then ma and women together; in Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. All attempts to fuse there two accounts into one have failed. Furthermore, the accounts are in vary different literary styles, representing two different authors from two different time periods. This does not lesser the status of Scripture in my eyes. For centuries, it has been known by believers that the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness, what with its flat earth and all. So it's no surprise we find this also to be the case with Genesis. And I could point to about 100 other contradictions in Scripture. Who Killed Goliath? David? Elhanan? Who? The Bible never describes the actual inspiration process. There are other viable theories of inspiration , other than the naïve assumption that God dictated it all word for word to purely passive scribes. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the Law of God. If you mean all those OT laws, other than the Ten Commandments, then yes, I do refute them. I don't think they are from God at all. For example, the legalization of slavery that we find in the OT. I also find the OT God to be brutal, unloving, merciless, and sadistic. Hence, I do not hold the OT is a complete revelation of the true nature of God. Also, the Bible contains no description as to what should be bible and what not. Who did that? The later church fathers, fallible human beings. Hence, we ended up two Bibles and a controversy over what should or should not be considered Scripture. So do you think the Apocrypha should or should not be in the Bible?
beingHnece, we ended up with two Bibles. So do you think the Aprcrapha shld or shold not be part of the Bible?

The Genesis account does not conflict. The first chapter of Genesis explains what was created in each day, and then the following chapter goes into greater detail on what happened on the 6th day. Adam named the different types of animals, which was done on that same day in time for the creation of Eve later that day. In naming types, he wasn't naming each species or subtypes within a type, as they didn't even exist then, God only made animal base "types" in the beginning, and since then have subtypes come into existence... for example, a type is a dog, but a dog now has many different subtypes of breeds that have come into existence over time, and we even seen this evident when God created animals,

And God said, Let the earth bring forth living life according to its type -- four-footed, and reptiles, and wild beasts of the earth according to type! And it was so. (Genesis 1:24 [ABP])

And concerning the bible saying the "earth is flat", the opposite is actually true,

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. (Isaiah 40:22)

Perhaps if the men who thought the earth was flat had read this scripture more carefully they would've have known better. There is also no contradiction in the killing of Goliath, there were in fact two people named Goliath which is why the scripture even specifies one as the Philistine and the other as the Gittite. Here are the scriptures,

And the priest said, Behold, the broadsword of Goliath the Philistine whom you struck in the valley of Ela. And it is wrapped in a cloak behind the shoulder-piece. If this you take for yourself, take! for there is none other besides it here. And David said, There is none as it, give it to me! (I Samuel 21:9 [ABP])

And there was still war with the Philistines in Nob. And Elhanan son of the Beth-lehemite struck Goliath the Gittite, and the wood of his spear was as the beam of a loom of one weaving. (II Samuel 21:19 [ABP])

I at least wanted to clarify these things for you regardless of your unfavorable opinion of the word of God.

 

[Der Alte]

I hear you, Cigviria. Let me go into more detail. I do not think the Genesis account is correct. Upon careful study, I find it is two conflicting accounts, with two conflicting chronologies. In Gen. 1, first animals, then ma and women together; in Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. All attempts to fuse there two accounts into one have failed. Furthermore, the accounts are in vary different literary styles, representing two different authors from two different time periods. This does not lesser the status of Scripture in my eyes. For centuries, it has been known by believers that the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness, what with its flat earth and all. So it's no surprise we find this also to be the case with Genesis. And I could point to about 100 other contradictions in Scripture. [Rubbish! DA] Who Killed Goliath? David? Elhanan? Who? The Bible never describes the actual inspiration process. There are other viable theories of inspiration , other than the naïve assumption that God dictated it all word for word to purely passive scribes. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the Law of God. If you mean all those OT laws, other than the Ten Commandments, then yes, I do refute them. I don't think they are from God at all. For example, the legalization of slavery that we find in the OT. I also find the OT God to be brutal, unloving, merciless, and sadistic. Hence, I do not hold the OT is a complete revelation of the true nature of God. Also, the Bible contains no description as to what should be bible and what not. Who did that? The later church fathers, fallible human beings. Hence, we ended up two Bibles and a controversy over what should or should not be considered Scripture. So do you think the Apocrypha should or should not be in the Bible?

For anyone who is interested in truth, if one can scour the internet for so-called Bible contradictions or errors one should be able to find some of the many sites which have refuted the assumed errors and reconciled the assumed contradictions. Here is one to start with. http://www.tektonics.org/

 

[Hoghead1]

I hear you, Cigviria. however, I beg to disagree on all your points. First, the circle f the dearth. You have completely misidentified it. The ancient Hebrews did consider the earth as flat. However, the heavens looked like a bowl over the earth. The word "circle" refers to this and not to the earth. This was quite common in ancient cultures.

Next, Goliath. Comparing later Bibles with the Dead Sea Scrolls, it appears that, over the years, the Book of Samuel became shorter and Goliath became much taller. I encourage you to check this out for yourself. Next the term "brother of," in regard to Goliath, is something certain translators imposed into the text, thereby tampering with the text. The original Hebrew texts omit this "bother of" statement. Next, Gittite meant a resident of Gath, a Philistine city. Hence, in both cases, Goliath is seen to be a Philistine. Also the description of both Goliaths is absolutely identical. Now, let me ask you: Just what chance do you think there is of two persons, with the same occupation, coming from the exact same time in the exact same town, having the exact same name, and the exact same description?
Next, Genesis. Biblical scholars have carefully studies the text and find it represents two radically different literary styles representing two differ periods in Israelite history. Hence, Gen. 2 is not a further explication of Gen. 1, as Gen. 2 was written long before Gen.1.Indeed, the whole idea of the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch went way back in the 19th century. Now, if you want to take issue with this, that is your privilege. However, if you want to construct a strong counterargument, I would suggest you first become expert in Hebrew. Furthermore, a plain reading of the text yields two conflicting chronologies of creation. First animals, then man and women together (Gen. 1); first man, then animals, then woman (Gen.2). Incidentally, I don't see how your concept of subtypes has any relevance here, as it no way fits the biblical language here. Your argument is that Gen. 2 is a further explication of Gen. 1 and simply describing everything that happened on the sixth day. That won't even begin to work, as Gen. 2 was written way before Gen. 1, as I pointed out above. Furthermore, Gen. 2 could not possible an account of what happened on the sixth day, as Gen. 1 makes it clear this happened before man and woman came along, and required one day. So Gen. 2 is actually putting a whole day between the creation of man and woman, thereby contradicting Gen. 1, which places the creation of animals several days before man and woman came along. In additi0on, gen. 1 sharply contradicts your assumption that Gen. 2 is describing what happened on eh sixth day, as Gen. one makes it clear man, woman, and animals were created before the sixth day. All attempts to reconcile these accounts have failed. I appreciate the fact that many laity are seduced by the claims of any one of a numb r of self-styled online apologists, such as J.P. Holding and Tectonics, etc., which appear to easily resolve matters. However, to those of us coming out of a richer education in biblical history, these solutions are simply the bogus creations of, the unqualified opinions of unqualified people. Let me give some examples here. Medieval Christendom sought to fuse these two accounts into one unified one. Problem was, they had a difficult time accounting for all the personnel involved. If the two accounts are truly one, then there had to be a woman created before Adam, the woman referred to in Gen. 1, And then there was a second woman to account for, Eve. Their solution was to argue Adam simply had two wives. Gen. 1 referred to his first wife, Lilith. Gen. 2 to his second wife, Eve. Why? Lilith was aggressive and liked to ride on top of Adam during sex. He didn't like this, so God gave him another wife, more submissive in sex, Eve. Lilith ran off and becomes a witch disturbing children. Hence, many cribs had "God save us from Lilith" written on them. Then there is the popular two-creation theory. This is very close to the pervious. it simply argues there were two creations, The animals created in the Garden were simply a second set in addition to the ones previously created. Problem is, this leaves key personnel unaccounted for. If Gen. 2 is simply a second set, then who were the man and woman created in Gen. 1, for which Adam and Even constitute an additional set? Then there is the popular pluperfect theory. All the problems here would easily vanish if we only relived Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect, thereby referring key players back into Gen. 1. The line should read "So had had created all the animals..." Looks impressive to laity, but sorry, won't work. There is no pluperfect tense in Hebrew. Then there is the flash theory. Gen. 1 and 2 can be easily reconciled if we just realize the author was using all kinds of flash-forward and flash-backward techniques. All you need to do is go into the text and arbitrarily label something said as a flash-forward or flash-backward. Problem is, as I just indicated, this is a perfectly arbitrary to handle the text, which in no way appears to be loaded with all his jumping around and for no apparent reason. Then there is the old hidden -chronology theory. There is only one author here. The true chronology is found in Gen. 1. When writing 2, the author has the Gen. 1 chronology in mind, but for some strange reason did not choose toe explicate Gen. 1 in that order. Question is: Just what is this strange reason? Also, why not assume that the author has in mind Gen. 2 as his true chronology, but for some strange reason did not state it in Gen. 1 Bottom line: It is totally inappropriate to say that I or anyone else hates the word of God. What we are trying to do is clearly establish just what is the status of word of God and the word of man when it comes to reading Scripture.

 

[cgaviria]

I hear you, Cigviria. however, I beg to disagree on all your points. First, the circle f the dearth. You have completely misidentified it. The ancient Hebrews did consider the earth as flat. However, the heavens looked like a bowl over the earth. The word "circle" refers to this and not to the earth. This was quite common in ancient cultures.

Next, Goliath. Comparing later Bibles with the Dead Sea Scrolls, it appears that, over the years, the Book of Samuel became shorter and Goliath became much taller. I encourage you to check this out for yourself. Next the term "brother of," in regard to Goliath, is something certain translators imposed into the text, thereby tampering with the text. The original Hebrew texts omit this "bother of" statement. Next, Gittite meant a resident of Gath, a Philistine city. Hence, in both cases, Goliath is seen to be a Philistine. Also the description of both Goliaths is absolutely identical. Now, let me ask you: Just what chance do you think there is of two persons, with the same occupation, coming from the exact same time in the exact same town, having the exact same name, and the exact same description?
Next, Genesis. Biblical scholars have carefully studies the text and find it represents two radically different literary styles representing two differ periods in Israelite history. Hence, Gen. 2 is not a further explication of Gen. 1, as Gen. 2 was written long before Gen.1.Indeed, the whole idea of the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch went way back in the 19th century. Now, if you want to take issue with this, that is your privilege. However, if you want to construct a strong counterargument, I would suggest you first become expert in Hebrew. Furthermore, a plain reading of the text yields two conflicting chronologies of creation. First animals, then man and women together (Gen. 1); first man, then animals, then woman (Gen.2). Incidentally, I don't see how your concept of subtypes has any relevance here, as it no way fits the biblical language here. Your argument is that Gen. 2 is a further explication of Gen. 1 and simply describing everything that happened on the sixth day. That won't even begin to work, as Gen. 2 was written way before Gen. 1, as I pointed out above. Furthermore, Gen. 2 could not possible an account of what happened on the sixth day, as Gen. 1 makes it clear this happened before man and woman came along, and required one day. So Gen. 2 is actually putting a whole day between the creation of man and woman, thereby contradicting Gen. 1, which places the creation of animals several days before man and woman came along. In additi0on, gen. 1 sharply contradicts your assumption that Gen. 2 is describing what happened on eh sixth day, as Gen. one makes it clear man, woman, and animals were created before the sixth day. All attempts to reconcile these accounts have failed. I appreciate the fact that many laity are seduced by the claims of any one of a numb r of self-styled online apologists, such as J.P. Holding and Tectonics, etc., which appear to easily resolve matters. However, to those of us coming out of a richer education in biblical history, these solutions are simply the bogus creations of, the unqualified opinions of unqualified people. Let me give some examples here. Medieval Christendom sought to fuse these two accounts into one unified one. Problem was, they had a difficult time accounting for all the personnel involved. If the two accounts are truly one, then there had to be a woman created before Adam, the woman referred to in Gen. 1, And then there was a second woman to account for, Eve. Their solution was to argue Adam simply had two wives. Gen. 1 referred to his first wife, Lilith. Gen. 2 to his second wife, Eve. Why? Lilith was aggressive and liked to ride on top of Adam during sex. He didn't like this, so God gave him another wife, more submissive in sex, Eve. Lilith ran off and becomes a witch disturbing children. Hence, many cribs had "God save us from Lilith" written on them. Then there is the popular two-creation theory. This is very close to the pervious. it simply argues there were two creations, The animals created in the Garden were simply a second set in addition to the ones previously created. Problem is, this leaves key personnel unaccounted for. If Gen. 2 is simply a second set, then who were the man and woman created in Gen. 1, for which Adam and Even constitute an additional set? Then there is the popular pluperfect theory. All the problems here would easily vanish if we only relived Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect, thereby referring key players back into Gen. 1. The line should read "So had had created all the animals..." Looks impressive to laity, but sorry, won't work. There is no pluperfect tense in Hebrew. Then there is the flash theory. Gen. 1 and 2 can be easily reconciled if we just realize the author was using all kinds of flash-forward and flash-backward techniques. All you need to do is go into the text and arbitrarily label something said as a flash-forward or flash-backward. Problem is, as I just indicated, this is a perfectly arbitrary to handle the text, which in no way appears to be loaded with all his jumping around and for no apparent reason. Then there is the old hidden -chronology theory. There is only one author here. The true chronology is found in Gen. 1. When writing 2, the author has the Gen. 1 chronology in mind, but for some strange reason did not choose toe explicate Gen. 1 in that order. Question is: Just what is this strange reason? Also, why not assume that the author has in mind Gen. 2 as his true chronology, but for some strange reason did not state it in Gen. 1 Bottom line: It is totally inappropriate to say that I or anyone else hates the word of God. What we are trying to do is clearly establish just what is the status of word of God and the word of man when it comes to reading Scripture.

The difference between you and I is that I don't seek the scriptures to find contradictions, I seek it to find truth. I've already been where you are many years ago searching the scriptures with a skeptical eye, and then in literally one day everything made sense as to why everything is the way it is.... the scriptures brought forth understanding and wisdom, and in having understanding and wisdom behind the creation of things, does it then become delightful to know and understand more. Everything that is created has a certain order and pattern, these things didn't just make themselves the way they are, the entire cosmos, the cycles of day and night, the sun, the moon, the stars, the sleep of man, the bringing forth of a woman from man, all these things were created this way to foreshadow things, and these things can only be understood once you attain wisdom.... but to those that are scientific and intelligent in their own eye, they don't understand why the things they study were made thus, they lack the wisdom to understand it.

 

[Justme]

The difference between you and I is that I don't seek the scriptures to find contradictions, I seek it to find truth. I've already been where you are many years ago searching the scriptures with a skeptical eye, and then in literally one day everything made sense as to why everything is the way it is.... the scriptures brought forth understanding and wisdom, and in having understanding and wisdom behind the creation of things, does it then become delightful to know and understand more. Everything that is created has a certain order and pattern, these things didn't just make themselves the way they are, the entire cosmos, the cycles of day and night, the sun, the moon, the stars, the sleep of man, the bringing forth of a woman from man, all these things were created this way to foreshadow things, and these things can only be understood once you attain wisdom.... but to those that are scientific and intelligent in their own eye, they don't understand why the things they study were made thus, they lack the wisdom to understand it.

I think you are dreaming pretty big!
What is your concern with thinking that God controlled how things were created... like if your GOD did not create Homo erectus, who's God did? Lucy? Ardi? The coprolite that I found and sits on my deck?????? Who's God created all that? Who caused it to BE?

I don't find any contradictions in scripture either, for example Genesis 2:
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. 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.

Now let's read these verses without the in between thoughts...
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up,.................... 7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground .....
Before there was any shrubs God began the process of creating man... as evolution explains everything developed from some single celled something.... it developed over an extremely long time. Then God took one member of the last ancestor of man and.....

and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Not PHYSICAL life but the eternal life or the immortal soul of man so man could enjoy etrnal life in heaven after physical death.
Justme

 

[cgaviria]

I think you are dreaming pretty big!
What is your concern with thinking that God controlled how things were created... like if your GOD did not create Homo erectus, who's God did? Lucy? Ardi? The coprolite that I found and sits on my deck?????? Who's God created all that? Who caused it to BE?

I don't find any contradictions in scripture either, for example Genesis 2:
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. 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.

Now let's read these verses without the in between thoughts...
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up,.................... 7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground .....
Before there was any shrubs God began the process of creating man... as evolution explains everything developed from some single celled something.... it developed over an extremely long time. Then God took one member of the last ancestor of man and.....

and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Not PHYSICAL life but the eternal life or the immortal soul of man so man could enjoy etrnal life in heaven after physical death.
Justme

Oh really? So are animal also immortal having the same breath of life we do?

they entered with Noah, into the ark, two by two, male and female, from all flesh in which there is a breath of life. (Genesis 7:15 [ABP])

No they are not immortal because of the breath of life. Even Paul say,

For it is necessary this corruption to put on incorruptibility, and this mortal to put on immortality. (I Corinthians 15:53 [ABP])

So why would we need to put on immortality if we were already immortal? But then you might say, well animals do not have a soul like we do, but even then the soul we do have is still not immortal, because we have this scripture,

And fear not of the ones killing the body, to not being able to kill the soul! But you fear rather the one being able both the soul and body to destroy in Gehenna! (Matthew 10:28 [ABP])

How can the soul being immortal as you say it is, then be said to be destroyed? So in fact the soul is mortal, and does end, because it is said to be destroyed in Gehenna.

 

[Der Alte]

Translator's notes from NET hardly "self-styled online apologists, such as J.P. Holding and Tectonics, etc."

32sn The Hebrew text as it stands reads, “Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite.” Who killed Goliath the Gittite? According to 1 Sam 17:4-58 it was David who killed Goliath, but according to the MT of 2 Sam 21:19 it was Elhanan who killed him. Many scholars believe that the two passages are hopelessly at variance with one another. Others have proposed various solutions to the difficulty, such as identifying David with Elhanan or positing the existence of two Goliaths. But in all likelihood the problem is the result of difficulties in the textual transmission of the Samuel passage; in fact, from a text-critical point of view the books of Samuel are the most poorly preserved of all the books of the Hebrew Bible. The parallel passage in 1 Chr 20:5 reads, “Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath.” Both versions are textually corrupt. The Chronicles text has misread “Bethlehemite” (ym!j=L^h^ tyB@, bet hallakhmi) as the accusative sign followed by a proper name ym!j=l^ ta# (’et lakhmi). (See the note at 1 Chr 20:5.) The Samuel text misread the word for “brother” (ja^, ’akh) as the accusative sign (ta@, ’et), thereby giving the impression that Elhanan, not David, killed Goliath. Thus in all probability the original text read, “Elhanan son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath.” ​

 

[cgaviria]

Translator's notes from NET hardly "self-styled online apologists, such as J.P. Holding and Tectonics, etc."

32sn The Hebrew text as it stands reads, “Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite.” Who killed Goliath the Gittite? According to 1 Sam 17:4-58 it was David who killed Goliath, but according to the MT of 2 Sam 21:19 it was Elhanan who killed him. Many scholars believe that the two passages are hopelessly at variance with one another. Others have proposed various solutions to the difficulty, such as identifying David with Elhanan or positing the existence of two Goliaths. But in all likelihood the problem is the result of difficulties in the textual transmission of the Samuel passage; in fact, from a text-critical point of view the books of Samuel are the most poorly preserved of all the books of the Hebrew Bible. The parallel passage in 1 Chr 20:5 reads, “Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath.” Both versions are textually corrupt. The Chronicles text has misread “Bethlehemite” (ym!j=L^h^ tyB@, bet hallakhmi) as the accusative sign followed by a proper name ym!j=l^ ta# (’et lakhmi). (See the note at 1 Chr 20:5.) The Samuel text misread the word for “brother” (ja^, ’akh) as the accusative sign (ta@, ’et), thereby giving the impression that Elhanan, not David, killed Goliath. Thus in all probability the original text read, “Elhanan son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath.” ​

That's a reasonable explanation.