What came first...?

[philadiddle]

Base on scripture, what came first, the fowl of the air and the beasts of the land, or man? Please answer based on Genesis 1 AND 2. I'd like to hear from the YECs before the TEs jump in with their interpretations.

I know this has come up many times but I'd really like to give the YECs a chance to explain their answer to this.

 

[theIdi0t]

Base on scripture, what came first, the fowl of the air and the beasts of the land, or man? Please answer based on Genesis 1 AND 2. I'd like to hear from the YECs before the TEs jump in with their interpretations.

I know this has come up many times but I'd really like to give the YECs a chance to explain their answer to this.

That's easy silly!

See God actually formed man after the chicken, and the bears. In Genesis 2, God just drew man on the drawing board, he just didn't follow through yet.

Duh!

Don't they teach you this stuff in Sunday school?

 

[theFijian]

Which day did he make the drawing board on?

 

[theIdi0t]

Which day did he make the drawing board on?

...the serpent only knows.

 

[philadiddle]

Oh cmon, it's not a complicated question. I hate not having a face to face, this forum allows ppl to just ignore questions if they can't answer.

 

[HypnoToad]

Oh, it's certainly not a "can't answer" situation. I have an answer, but since the TE's here couldn't follow the instructions of the OP, it doesn't seem worth participating.

 

[juvenissun]

Base on scripture, what came first, the fowl of the air and the beasts of the land, or man?

Day 5: birds
Day 6: dogs, then man

What's the point of the question? Can you read?

 

[philadiddle]

Day 5: birds
Day 6: dogs, then man

What's the point of the question? Can you read?

Then what about chapter 2 saying
7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

then later,
18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19And 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.

Seems to me that a literal reading of chapter 2 would say that man came first. (King James Version)

 

[philadiddle]

Am I so completely missing the point of the verse that it's not worth responding to me? Am I wrong? It's fine if I read it wrong, I'm just looking for some clarification on this.

 

[Dannager]

Oh, it's certainly not a "can't answer" situation. I have an answer, but since the TE's here couldn't follow the instructions of the OP, it doesn't seem worth participating.

Oh, don't even. If we ditched a thread every time it was hijacked by a creationist this forum would be practically empty. No one wants to hear your excuses for not participating.

 

[Crusadar]

Then what about chapter
Seems to me that a literal reading of chapter 2 would say that man came first. (King James Version)

Seems to me youv'e taken the verses out of context, why not try reading it in context, starting with 1st verse of chapter 2 - and if your are still confused we can continue the discussion.

 

[HolyGuardianAngels]

Base on scripture, what came first, the fowl of the air and the beasts of the land, or man? Please answer based on Genesis 1 AND 2. I'd like to hear from the YECs before the TEs jump in with their interpretations.

I know this has come up many times but I'd really like to give the YECs a chance to explain their answer to this.

MY answer is:

• The Potter came First . . .

[bible]Genesis 1:1-31[/bible]






When The Potter came, Christ was born . . .

 

[HolyGuardianAngels]

Base on scripture, what came first, the fowl of the air and the beasts of the land, or man? Please answer based on Genesis 1 AND 2. I'd like to hear from the YECs before the TEs jump in with their interpretations.

I know this has come up many times but I'd really like to give the YECs a chance to explain their answer to this.

And The Potter said,
"It is not good that man should be alone;
I will make Him a help Mate
comparable to HIM . . .







[BIBLE]Genesis 2:1-25[/BIBLE]











"And they were both NAKED,
the man and HIS wife,
and were not ASHAMED . . . .

 

[HypnoToad]

Oh, don't even. If we ditched a thread every time it was hijacked by a creationist this forum would be practically empty. No one wants to hear your excuses for not participating.

Well, from you comment, it appears that you agree the first few TE responses were inappropriate. But, instead of calling them on it, you'd rather attack the creationist who points out their poor behavior.

How is it an "excuse"? Let's look at it, shall we?

There's only a few possibilities:

1. They didn't bother to read the OP's instruction. Why participate when people aren't reading what's posted?

2. They read it, but didn't understand it. Why participate when people demonstrate they have poor reading comprehension?

3. They read it, understood it, but didn't care. Why participate with people with that attitude?

Then there's the OP himself, who could have contacted a Mod to have the posts removed, but that hasn't happened. What does that suggest about him?

Then there's you, attacking me for standing up for points of order.

You honestly question why I choose to not participate?

 

[juvenissun]

Base on scripture, what came first, the fowl of the air and the beasts of the land, or man? Please answer based on Genesis 1 AND 2. I'd like to hear from the YECs before the TEs jump in with their interpretations.

I know this has come up many times but I'd really like to give the YECs a chance to explain their answer to this.

Your question is not that complicate to start with. There is no need to separate it into parts.

The question has been discussed for a while by many people. Here is one of the references: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/genesis.asp

 

[shernren]

Well, from you comment, it appears that you agree the first few TE responses were inappropriate. But, instead of calling them on it, you'd rather attack the creationist who points out their poor behavior.

How is it an "excuse"? Let's look at it, shall we?

There's only a few possibilities:

1. They didn't bother to read the OP's instruction. Why participate when people aren't reading what's posted?

2. They read it, but didn't understand it. Why participate when people demonstrate they have poor reading comprehension?

3. They read it, understood it, but didn't care. Why participate with people with that attitude?

Then there's the OP himself, who could have contacted a Mod to have the posts removed, but that hasn't happened. What does that suggest about him?

Then there's you, attacking me for standing up for points of order.

You honestly question why I choose to not participate?

I have to agree with XianJedi's point, if not his zeal or his perception of some kind of a conspiracy (right down to why the OP didn't ask to have the off-topic removed - most OPs don't have the time, effort, or commitment to maintain such draconian control over their threads!). The OP clearly stated that YECs should get first dibs, and they didn't.

Having said that, a list of reasons to not participate very quickly invites a fourth response:

4. "Why participate if they don't already know the answer? After all, if they knew the creationist answer, they'd be creationists themselves, and if they don't know the creationist answer, they're too far gone to be worth my time."

This is a statement about human psychology, not about the rightness or wrongness of your position: saying "I know the answer but I'm not telling you!" is a surefire way to look arrogant and patronizing even when you mean nothing of the sort. (Perceived motives are often miles apart from actual motives; but perceived motives often matter far more, in discussion at least.)

The best thing to do when you are morally outraged about participating in a thread is, well, simply don't participate. Fullstop. Popping in just to say "You boys are rough, I'm not playing" really isn't worthwhile at all.

 

[philadiddle]

Your question is not that complicate to start with. There is no need to separate it into parts.

The question has been discussed for a while by many people. Here is one of the references: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/genesis.asp

That's a reasonable answer, kinda what I was looking for. Maybe try to avoid the "Can you read?" questions, it doesn't really make a good case for your response, just puts a bad taste in ppls mouths.

 

[philadiddle]

Then there's the OP himself, who could have contacted a Mod to have the posts removed, but that hasn't happened. What does that suggest about him?

It doesn't suggest anything about me, why the personal attack? This is a public chat forum on the internet, and because of that I expect 80% of the post to be pointless, so a couple posts in a thread I made that are off topic don't really matter.

You honestly question why I choose to not participate?

Not participate? You've posted twice in this thread already. Not only did you participate with an off topic complaint, but you checked back and responded to the responses to your first post. Seems like participation to me. The kind of participation you are complaining about.

 

[Assyrian]

Your question is not that complicate to start with. There is no need to separate it into parts.

The question has been discussed for a while by many people. Here is one of the references: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/genesis.asp

The problem is AiG don't actually answer the question, they just do a bit of hand waving about what 'Jewish scholars would have understood' and 'context' without explaining who the Jewish scholars were or what they understood or what the context says that explains the contradiction. As far as I can make out, their argument is that there cannot be a contradiction between Gen 1 & 2 therefore the verb must mean something else.

Then the article goes on to talk about chapters 1 & 2 being two separate Toledoth that were only compiled by Moses. This contradicts any suggestion that a context in chapter 1 determines the meaning of the verb in a completely different account.

 

[HypnoToad]

Popping in just to say "You boys are rough, I'm not playing" really isn't worthwhile at all.

Ok, but that's not what I did. Look at my first post - it is not simply, "I'm not participating because they are rude". There is another critical component that you overlook.

Before my post, the OP commented that it was a question we "CAN'T" answer.

My post was primarily to point out that it is not an issue of "can't".

It doesn't suggest anything about me, why the personal attack?

It's not a personal attack, it was a simple statement of observations.

Were the questionable posts still there? Yes.

Have you done anything to get them removed? No action observed.

And then I asked, "what does that suggest?" That's open for anyone to come to their own conclusion. There was no personal attack.

Not participate? You've posted twice in this thread already. Not only did you participate with an off topic complaint, but you checked back and responded to the responses to your first post. Seems like participation to me. The kind of participation you are complaining about.

Hardly.

My first post was responding to your "can't" comment.

Every subsequent post has been a response to those who subsequently attack or question me on that post. I've only been going where you folks have been taking the discussion.