Two Simple Rules of Thumb

[CabVet]

No, it doesn't.

God created the Garden of Eden after He created Adam, then He put Adam in the Garden and paraded the animals past him; finally, God put Adam to sleep and created Eve from one of his ribs.

Once again ... for empahsis ... God created the Garden after He created Adam, but before He created Eve.

As we like to put it: God built the chapel that Adam & Eve got married in.

My question to you, though, is twofold: How many times does the Bible say in Genesis 2 that God placed Adam in the Garden? and how many times did God place Adam in the Garden in Genesis 2?

Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Ok, I will buy the plant part (which I don't). But let's assume you are correct and say that God created the Garden separately and that is not described in Genesis 1 (even though Genesis 1 says that God rested after he created humans).

What about animals? Do you reconcile them the same way? The text is clear: there were no animals before and Adam was alone.

Genesis 2:18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
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.

Are you going to say that those animals were again created specifically for the garden?

 

[Michael]

Based on over seven and a half years here, I'm now condensing my apologetics down into two simple rules of thumb:

Rule One: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the literal translation of the King James Bible to be contradicted.

I hope that you at least accept that your 'Rule 1' is pretty much a "statement of faith" in a "non-critical' (to Christianity) belief that isn't even shared by all Christians. Most of them, including the entire Catholic sect does not interpret everything literally. In other words, it's a personal choice that falls *outside* of the core Christian doctrine.

If necessary, use even the punctuation therein to defend your point; but never let a point contradict the Bible -- ever.

This seems more like a rationalization intended to defend rule/assumption 1.

Rule Two: Seek a logical explanation first; and if that doesn't work, then go with a theological explanation.

Indeed, rule 2 is pretty much the "rule of rationalization' designed to protect assumption 1.

Scripture first, followed by basic doctrine, followed by suppositions; but don't let the logical trump the theological.

If you're trying to distill that behavior into a generic formula for every topic, it would look something like.

A) Assume your current beliefs are true.
B) Rationalize away anything that contradicts with rule A

It sounds more like a circular feedback loop designed to protect rule A.

 

[CabVet]

A) Assume your current beliefs are true.
B) Rationalize away anything the contradicts with rule A

It sounds more like a circular feedback look designed to protect rule A.

Exactly!

P.S.: I only now realize you are in Mt. Shasta! I went there to hike with my family a few weeks ago, fantastic place!

 

[bhsmte]

I hope that you at least accept that your 'Rule 1' is pretty much a "statement of faith" in a "non-critical' (to Christianity) belief that isn't even shared by all Christians. Most of them, including the entire Catholic sect does not interpret everything literally. In other words, it's a personal choice that falls *outside* of the core Christian doctrine.

This seems more like a rationalization intended to defend rule/assumption 1.

Indeed, rule 2 is pretty much the "rule of rationalization' designed to protect assumption 1.

If you're trying to distill that behavior into a generic formula for every topic, it would look something like.

A) Assume your current beliefs are true.
B) Rationalize away anything that contradicts with rule A

It sounds more like a circular feedback loop designed to protect rule A.

Exactly and precisely!!!!!!!!

 

[Michael]

Exactly!

P.S.: I only now realize you are in Mt. Shasta! I went there to hike with my family a few weeks ago, fantastic place!

It's been a real pleasure raising a family in Mt. Shasta and living in this area. I enjoy living in a small town, but sometimes they get too small. I've found that sometimes big cities are a fantastic place to visit too, but I always enjoy coming home to this area.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, I will buy the plant part (which I don't).

I appreciate that.

It's refreshing to see someone as honest as you are.

I know that when I ask a question, I'm almost sure to get an answer.

What about animals?

My point is this: Genesis 2 is a subsumption to Genesis 1.

It is a story that is to be inserted into Genesis 1.

A sort of addition between the lines, so to speak.

That's why Genesis 2 appears out of chronology, if taken as subsequent to Genesis 1.

 

[AV1611VET]

I hope that you at least accept that your 'Rule 1' is pretty much a "statement of faith" in a "non-critical' (to Christianity) belief that isn't even shared by all Christians.

I do, but it's better than my 4-point Boolean standards, that I changed to my 4-point "heuristics" (Cheeky's term that I liked so well).

It also exemplifies the theological over the logical.[/QUOTE]

 

[AV1611VET]

Exactly!

One man's "rationalize away" is another man's "reconcile."

Without those standards, I'm at the mercy of raw science.

 

[bhsmte]

I do, but it's better than my 4-point Boolean standards, that I changed to my 4-point "heuristics" (Cheeky's term that I liked so well).

It also exemplifies the theological over the logical.

[/QUOTE]

And as I stated before, if that philosophy works for your personally, good for you.

 

[CabVet]

One man's "rationalize away" is another man's "reconcile."

Without those standards, I'm at the mercy of raw science.

As you should be.

 

[AV1611VET]

And as I stated before, if that philosophy works for your personally, good for you.

Thank your.

 

[AV1611VET]

As you should be.

No argument there.

 

[Michael]

One man's "rationalize away" is another man's "reconcile."

Without those standards, I'm at the mercy of raw science.

You're at the mercy of raw science anyway, including the electricity you're using, your computer, your cell phone, your internet access, etc. I fail to see why science wouldn't be a useful tool in *helping* you to decide what is the 'correct' way to interpret the Bible, rather than see science as being in opposition to the Bible. That seems like another one of your personal subjective "choices" that automatically becomes another rule A).

 

[Michael]

I do, but it's better than my 4-point Boolean standards, that I changed to my 4-point "heuristics" (Cheeky's term that I liked so well).

It also exemplifies the theological over the logical.

As long as you at least accept that your belief in a literally interpretation isn't a 'core' Christian doctrine, I'm happy my friend.

 

[Strathos]

I never understood KJV-only-ism and I never will. It seems like idolatry.

 

[AV1611VET]

I never understood KJV-only-ism and I never will. It seems like idolatry.

Ya ... don't you wish the Mayflower Compact, Declaration of Independence, and U.S. Constitution would be rewritten so they're easier to read?

If it weren't for the MCOs, DIOs, and USCO idolatrists, we could have those documents upgraded with missing words, whole passages removed, and gender changes.

 

[Michael]

I never understood KJV-only-ism and I never will. It seems like idolatry.

I agree with you on that point by the way.

 

[AV1611VET]

I agree with you on that point by the way.

So the U.S. Constitution or the Declaration of Independence breeds idolatry as well?

 

[Michael]

So the U.S. Constitution or the Declaration of Independence breeds idolatry as well?

If you tried to claim they were utterly "infallible" as originally written, yes. Did every human being have the opportunity to vote the very first day the Declaration or Constitution was written? Are there later "amendments" to the Constitution, or was it "perfect" as written?

 

[AV1611VET]

If you tried to claim they were utterly "infallible" as originally written, yes. Did every human being have the opportunity to vote the very first day the Declaration or Constitution was written? Are there later "amendments" to the Constitution, or was it "perfect" as written?

Interesting that Wikipedia doesn't mention anything about "idolatry" in its article on KJVO.

Evidently that insult stems from a lower level of maturity than Wikipedia ... eh?

And you guys call yourselves "wise man"?