Which creation do creationists want us to believe took place?

[AV1611VET]

Having to repeat myself again and again gets boring.

Does that include the same questions over and over and over and over and over?

 

[juvenissun]

Psalm 13 5:7 and Jeremiah 10:13.

I already treated this in an earlier post. At least try to follow along Juvenissun. Having to repeat myself again and again gets boring.

Sorry, this is my first request. Who else made the same request?

Jer 10:13 When he uttereth his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens, and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures.

Why is this one against the knowledge of water cycle? (the Psalm 13:5-7 seems to be a mistake. Psalm 13 has only 6 verses and are not talking about water)

In fact, you just gave another wonderful example of correct science in the Bible.

Do you believe that Jeremiah understood the "multitude of waters" he was talking about? I don't think so. But it is a proven truth by the modern meteorology. Even this term is also used in other Bible books for other messages, it is used in this verse mainly for the waters in the air.

------

Hey, AV, God is watching us. TomK just gave me a new piece for my collection. So, I will simply take it as my next example to illustrate that there are correct scientific messages in the Bible.

 

[Tomk80]

Sorry, this is my first request. Who else made the same request?

I already answered the question in another "request" of yours. Read back.

 

[juvenissun]

I already answered the question in another "request" of yours. Read back.

OK. I don't remember. (how could I find it in a quick way?)

 

[ReverendDG]

I'd buy that. Since this side discussion started, I've strongly suspected that the author of this text believed something wholly wrong about how the water got from the sea to the rivers. He doesn't explicitly say what he believes in this regard, however, so it's difficult to say. But him being wrong is the expected result, as most beliefs are.

the problem i find with creationists as a whole when it comes to this stuff is, they have a very flawed understanding of what the beliefs in the bible were.

what i mean is, you can't understand the bible if you assume modern knowledge of the world, for instance juvenissun's assumption that people during david's time would even conceive of the water cycle because its obvious now.

but why would they? their belief was the world was a snow globe floating in an endless ocean, with another floating over them.

of course i've explained this to a number of creationists, and they just do not get it, what i'm explaining is the biblical cosmology i'm not making this up.
the text works well if you know the biblical cosmology and it makes sense in light of a people with limited knowledge of the world.

trying to insert modern knowledge of the world, even that its not a flat disk with a dome over it holding water over it until god wants it to rain, makes the bible look insane rather than just wrong.

 

[ReverendDG]

Sorry, this is my first request. Who else made the same request?



Why is this one against the knowledge of water cycle? (the Psalm 13:5-7 seems to be a mistake. Psalm 13 has only 6 verses and are not talking about water)

In fact, you just gave another wonderful example of correct science in the Bible.

but its not about the water cycle but gods control over the universe, why do you feel the need to insert things that the people who wrote it obviously did not believe?

Do you believe that Jeremiah understood the "multitude of waters" he was talking about? I don't think so. But it is a proven truth by the modern meteorology. Even this term is also used in other Bible books for other messages, it is used in this verse mainly for the waters in the air.

yes he did, he was talking about rain, the biblical cosmology says there was an ocean above the sky, its why they believed the sky was blue.

------

Hey, AV, God is watching us. TomK just gave me a new piece for my collection. So, I will simply take it as my next example to illustrate that there are correct scientific messages in the Bible.

no you are just twisting the bible to make it seem like it, go read what people believed back then

http://knowinginpart.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/genesis-1-the-firmament-and-hebrew-cosmology/
i think this guy has a nice handle on it. claiming the hebrews were writing down stuff that was beyond them is silly in light of what historians know about their beliefs.
you are stretching the very limits of incredulity by saying the text was about things we know now. reading it in light of the flat earth and limited understanding of the earth the text makes sense, you don't need to magic up extra stuff to compensate for confusion.

creationists seem to want to make the text more than it is, when its not, its just a simple story to understand the world by, its not a science book.

 

[AV1611VET]

claiming the hebrews were writing down stuff that was beyond them is silly in light of what historians know about their beliefs.

Peter says that the Old Testament prophets wrote things down that even the angels didn't understand:

10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

Historians can take a hike.

 

[juvenissun]

the problem i find with creationists as a whole when it comes to this stuff is, they have a very flawed understanding of what the beliefs in the bible were.

what i mean is, you can't understand the bible if you assume modern knowledge of the world, for instance juvenissun's assumption that people during david's time would even conceive of the water cycle because its obvious now.

I don't how how to make you people understand.

I did not say they "understand" modern science. The magic is that they described correct science message without understanding. That is not a possible thing for human to do. It did not just happened once, it happened tens of times. Besides, don't forget that the Bible is not a science book. Science in the Bible is just a decoration.

 

[juvenissun]

Do you believe that Jeremiah understood the "multitude of waters" he was talking about? I don't think so. But it is a proven truth by the modern meteorology. Even this term is also used in other Bible books for other messages, it is used in this verse mainly for the waters in the air.

yes he did, he was talking about rain, the biblical cosmology says there was an ocean above the sky, its why they believed the sky was blue.

No. Waters in this verse DO NOT mean rain. These "waters" are still hanging in the air. If you want to argue, you may say it means small water drops. But that is not a full answer. Fog drop is just ONE type of water in the air. There are other types.

The point is I think it is not Jeremiah who put the word in the verse. God does it. So, I am not inserting anything into the verse. I am reading the rich meaning of the words. Without a modern scientific knowledge, I guess YOU can not see the full meaning of this word even you want to.

 

[Chalnoth]

I don't how how to make you people understand.

I did not say they "understand" modern science. The magic is that they described correct science message without understanding. That is not a possible thing for human to do. It did not just happened once, it happened tens of times. Besides, don't forget that the Bible is not a science book. Science in the Bible is just a decoration.

You're reading something into the text that simply isn't there. First, these passages, if they aren't horribly wrong, are only correct in the most vague sense possible. Second, there is no indication whatsoever of special knowledge that they could not have deduced themselves.

 

[juvenissun]

Originally Posted by 1 Peter 1:10-12
12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

Hey, AV. This verse is one of my favorite. It opened my eyes so wide that I started to see the value of human to God. It is really really amazing. This verse changed my life.

Merry Christmas to you.

 

[juvenissun]

You're reading something into the text that simply isn't there. First, these passages, if they aren't horribly wrong, are only correct in the most vague sense possible. Second, there is no indication whatsoever of special knowledge that they could not have deduced themselves.

You can "repeat" your comment. But I am tired of doing so to my answers.
You don't get it. Be it.

In case you have something new to say, then I will reply.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey, AV. This verse is one of my favorite. It opened my eyes so wide that I started to see the value of human to God. It is really really amazing. This verse changed my life.

Merry Christmas to you.

Thank you, my friend!

God bless, and a Very Merry Christmas to you as well!

 

[Chalnoth]

I find it amusing that you continue to claim that it is we who are not getting it, when it is you that have failed to convince. If you have no effective arguments to offer, then so be it.

 

[juvenissun]

You may as well --- even though they're choking on theology as it is.

I warned them about straying outside of Genesis 1 until they understood it, but they wouldn't listen.

[shrugs shoulders]

So, AV. You see what happened. When they can not argue on the science, then they say I "read the science into the Bible". The "truth" was not there according to the Bible authors.

Well. I am glad that I can read it that way. Too bad that they do not allow a chance for me to share more of the excitement. I wish I have chance to share them with you.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, AV. You see what happened. When they can not argue on the science, then they say I "read the science into the Bible". The "truth" was not there according to the Bible authors.

Well. I am glad that I can read it that way. Too bad that they do not allow a chance for me to share more of the excitement. I wish I have chance to share them with you.

Yes, indeed. I see science all through the Scriptures, from pest control to a lie detector to sterilization by fire or running water. Even Moses grounding the Golden Calf to powder and putting the powder into the water and making them drink it was a smart move.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

So anyone care to take a stab at explaining these conflicting accounts? Even god couldn't have "Did it" both ways.

http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html

The Old Testament
[FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+1]Creation Account, Times Two [/SIZE][/FONT]

[SIZE=+1][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0]Or, Was the Author of Genesis 1-2 a Flaming Knucklehead? [/SIZE][/FONT]

[SIZE=-1]J. P. Holding [/SIZE]

[Introduction and Inquiry] [Two Creation Accounts -- or One?] [Alleged Points of Contradiction] [An Alternative Explanation] [Extra Objections from Dennis McKinsey and Ebon Musings]


[SIZE=+0][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif]The first two chapters of Genesis are regularly bashed on the noggin for being contrary to modern notions of science; but we won't be discussing that here. Instead, we're going to look at the issue of internal inconsistencies in the two so-called "creation accounts" -- which actually split at verse 2:4; but for brevity we'll refer to the accounts, respectively, as G1 and G2.[/FONT][/SIZE]


[SIZE=+0][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif]This essay is an expansion upon some counters to objections previously found on another part of this page, and is prompted in part by some responses passed on to me from a Christian member of a known Skeptical discussion board. And so, let's get down to business. We will explore these areas:

1. Are there actually two creation accounts?
2. Do these two accounts contradict one another? In answer to this question, we will pursue these replies:
   • Evidences of unity of authorship in the two accounts. Most cite contradiction in tandem with proofs that G1 and G2 were authored by different parties, in accord with the JEDP hypothesis. In response, it should be noted that it is certainly possible, if not very likely, that both G1 and G2 began as oral accounts that were later put into writing. We will argue that one author was responsible for both written accounts, whatever their original source may have been, thus indicating that any contradiction that would exist would have been intentional, and thus not problematic for inerrantists.
   • Internal and grammatical solutions. We will show that even if two different people authored G1 and G2, they are not contradictory at all, but complementary.

[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][FONT=Arial, Times New Roman, Sans-serif][SIZE=+1]G1? G2? G Whiz! [/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=+0][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif]A key operational question for this subject may come as a surprise: Are G1 and G2 actually creation accounts? G1 is undoubtedly so, but the classification of G2 is a bit more subtle, and affects somewhat our overall presentation. [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif]The book of Genesis contains several sections that begin with the phrase which we sometimes render, "These are the generations of..." The word "generations" is the Hebrew toledot and has the connotation of a family history or succession. Toledot are given for Adam's line (5:1-6:8), Noah (6:9-9:29), Noah's sons (10:1-11:9), Shem (11:10-26), Terah and Abram (11:27-25:11), and so on -- there are nearly a dozen recurrences of the toledot introduction and method, and one of these, interestingly enough, is Genesis 2:4-4:6. What does this mean? It means that G2 is not actually a creation account as such, but a "family history" of the first men in creation [Mat.Gen126, 12ff]. It is therefore a point to begin our argument by noting that anyone who reads G2 as a rehash of the creation accounted in G1 is missing the boat from the start. It is quite unlikely, given the parallel toledot structure, that the author of Genesis is repeating himself (although we do have examples of dual creation accounts -- the former told generally, the latter told more specifically -- in Sumerian and Babylonian literature). Rather, the indication would be that G2 is of an entirely different genre and approach than G1, and that any supposed contradiction between them needs to be understood in that light.[/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=+0][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif]So G2 is not exactly a "creation account" to begin with; and this leads to the next question, of whether a single author is responsible for both. In that regard, the evidence indicates a very close unity between G1 and G2, one that indicates either a single redactor or, more likely, a single author. G1 and G2 are indeed linked by a detectable and obvious pattern:[/FONT][/SIZE]

For the entire article: http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE]

 

[AV1611VET]

[SIZE=+1][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif]So G2 is not exactly a "creation account" to begin with; and this leads to the next question, of whether a single author is responsible for both. In that regard, the evidence indicates a very close unity between G1 and G2, one that indicates either a single redactor or, more likely, a single author. G1 and G2 are indeed linked by a detectable and obvious pattern:[/FONT][/SIZE]

For the entire article: http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE]

G1 is the Creation account --- G2 is the account of Adam's wedding to Eve --- and not intended to be used as the Creation account.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Yes, indeed. I see science all through the Scriptures, from pest control to a lie detector to sterilization by fire or running water. Even Moses grounding the Golden Calf to powder and putting the powder into the water and making them drink it was a smart move.

Of course, and in a hundred years, your successors will see all sorts of amazing stuff in the Bible that nobody ever noticed there until it was invented by scientists in real life.

 

[Chalnoth]

http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html

The Old Testament
[FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+1]Creation Account, Times Two [/SIZE][/FONT]

[SIZE=+1][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0]Or, Was the Author of Genesis 1-2 a Flaming Knucklehead? [/SIZE][/FONT]

[SIZE=-1]J. P. Holding [/SIZE]

[Introduction and Inquiry] [Two Creation Accounts -- or One?] [Alleged Points of Contradiction] [An Alternative Explanation] [Extra Objections from Dennis McKinsey and Ebon Musings]


[SIZE=+0][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif]The first two chapters of Genesis are regularly bashed on the noggin for being contrary to modern notions of science; but we won't be discussing that here. Instead, we're going to look at the issue of internal inconsistencies in the two so-called "creation accounts" -- which actually split at verse 2:4; but for brevity we'll refer to the accounts, respectively, as G1 and G2.[/FONT][/SIZE]


[SIZE=+0][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif]This essay is an expansion upon some counters to objections previously found on another part of this page, and is prompted in part by some responses passed on to me from a Christian member of a known Skeptical discussion board. And so, let's get down to business. We will explore these areas:

1. Are there actually two creation accounts?
2. Do these two accounts contradict one another? In answer to this question, we will pursue these replies:
   • Evidences of unity of authorship in the two accounts. Most cite contradiction in tandem with proofs that G1 and G2 were authored by different parties, in accord with the JEDP hypothesis. In response, it should be noted that it is certainly possible, if not very likely, that both G1 and G2 began as oral accounts that were later put into writing. We will argue that one author was responsible for both written accounts, whatever their original source may have been, thus indicating that any contradiction that would exist would have been intentional, and thus not problematic for inerrantists.
   • Internal and grammatical solutions. We will show that even if two different people authored G1 and G2, they are not contradictory at all, but complementary.

[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][FONT=Arial, Times New Roman, Sans-serif][SIZE=+1]G1? G2? G Whiz! [/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=+0][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif]A key operational question for this subject may come as a surprise: Are G1 and G2 actually creation accounts? G1 is undoubtedly so, but the classification of G2 is a bit more subtle, and affects somewhat our overall presentation. [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif]The book of Genesis contains several sections that begin with the phrase which we sometimes render, "These are the generations of..." The word "generations" is the Hebrew toledot and has the connotation of a family history or succession. Toledot are given for Adam's line (5:1-6:8), Noah (6:9-9:29), Noah's sons (10:1-11:9), Shem (11:10-26), Terah and Abram (11:27-25:11), and so on -- there are nearly a dozen recurrences of the toledot introduction and method, and one of these, interestingly enough, is Genesis 2:4-4:6. What does this mean? It means that G2 is not actually a creation account as such, but a "family history" of the first men in creation [Mat.Gen126, 12ff]. It is therefore a point to begin our argument by noting that anyone who reads G2 as a rehash of the creation accounted in G1 is missing the boat from the start. It is quite unlikely, given the parallel toledot structure, that the author of Genesis is repeating himself (although we do have examples of dual creation accounts -- the former told generally, the latter told more specifically -- in Sumerian and Babylonian literature). Rather, the indication would be that G2 is of an entirely different genre and approach than G1, and that any supposed contradiction between them needs to be understood in that light.[/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=+0][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif]So G2 is not exactly a "creation account" to begin with; and this leads to the next question, of whether a single author is responsible for both. In that regard, the evidence indicates a very close unity between G1 and G2, one that indicates either a single redactor or, more likely, a single author. G1 and G2 are indeed linked by a detectable and obvious pattern:[/FONT][/SIZE]

For the entire article: http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE]

Why not state, in your own words, why you think this is convincing, specifically? Because personally, I find it an attempt to wrap up the inconsistencies seen here in nebulous language so that it no longer seems contradictory just because the meaning is no longer clear.