Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Every living thing is made of carbon (soil's primary ingredient) and water. It's not a contradiction, it's a fact. God used water and carbon to make every living thing.
Neither Genesis 1 nor Genesis 2 say birds came from water...you are simply not reading those texts correctly. What translation are you using?Fact remains that Genesis 1 says birds were produced by water, and Genesis 2 says they were produced by soil. It's a problem only if you assume that the creation account is a literal history.
Neither Genesis 1 nor Genesis 2 say birds came from water...
you are simply not reading those texts correctly.
2. Genesis chapter 2 elaborates on the bird creation briefly introduced in chapter 1. There is no conflict there.
Well, let's take a look. From the KJV:
Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
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.
The point is, the reason why there is an apparent discrepancy between Genesis 1 and 2 on this topic is because one is explaining the creation of amphibians, crabs, shellfish etc, in detail and the other is not.
I hope this clarifies this argument and resolves the problem. It really is not a reference for evolution...
The unresolved fact actually that i mentioned a few posts back remains unresolved for theistic evolution...Adam could not have named every beast of the field and every bird in the air if they had not yet evolved!
[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] this is bordering on the level of complete stupidity...I have already addressed your apparent interpretation of birds coming from water. It simply does not even imply that...Birds are not crabs, or other shellfish. Birds are mentioned specifically as being produced by water in Genesis 1, and by the ground in Genesis 2.
1. you are simply NOT reading the text correctly.
2. In fact it does not appear to even say Birds came up out of the water, it could be read as saying moving creatures came up out of the water
Also, I have an interesting question for evolution... did prey animals evolve first or predators?
(Its a bit of a chicken or the egg question really and the basic answer co-evolved doesnt really explain the dilemma here)
Let me explain this further with a few points to illustrate
In the Bible, in what text does it say crabs, lobsters, amphibians, mollusks, sea anemones, star fish, were created?
Where do the above creatures live...where are their young born, on land or in the water?
Are the above creatures swimmers or creepers?
The point is, the reason why there is an apparent discrepancy between Genesis 1 and 2 on this topic is because one is explaining the creation of amphibians, crabs, shellfish etc, in detail and the other is not.
There is no contradiction here...you simply are not reading the texts correctly. Add a bit of common sense and logic and even a limited knowledge of the types of animals/creatures found in the water and there is a really really simple explanation.
Also, I would suggest that when determining doctrine, it is foolishness to simply use one Bible translation (in this case the King James). You must find consistency across a range of translations that use different source material (codexes) for their basis. This is a fundamental difference between what educated scholars do, and those of us who are not...we take but one source and use that as fact (i am certainly no saint on that point)
For example, the Guttenburg translation (King James) appears to generally imply, or perhaps it may be read to even state, that animals (its moving creatures not birds) come up out of the water. However, if you read the original codexes, you will find that is not in fact that way it should be translated. Even so, if read in context with Genesis Chapter 2, Genesis chapter 1 and 2 do not actually contradict each other...they complement because one adds further information to the other (and creationists have absolutely no problem with that, it happens all through the Bible).
I hope this clarifies this argument and resolves the problem. It really is not a reference for evolution...as much as one may try to twist the two texts into proof of "Old Earth" evolution in terms of the creation process.
The unresolved fact actually that i mentioned a few posts back remains unresolved for theistic evolution...Adam could not have named every beast of the field and every bird in the air if they had not yet evolved! Additionally, even if they did evolve, all of these creatures would have 100% needed to have evolved during Adam's lifetime. We know that the time he lived simply is consistent with that.
One may ask, oh but he was dated until after he and Eve sinned. That is true, however, there is further evidence of the fact they were not in the garden long...there is no mention of Cain and Abel until after the expulsion from the Garden. Clearly these two young men, even if possibly born in the garden, had no wives at the point of Abels death. This means that it is an unrealistic stretch of the imagination to suggest millions of years in the garden of Eden (not even thousands). It simply does not remain consistent with the breeding process of humans at the time. Attempting to twist the narrative in order to fit with evolution is so extreme its vastly more ridiculous than simply taking the narrative as is.
.
Also, I have an interesting question for evolution... did prey animals evolve first or predators? (Its a bit of a chicken or the egg question really and the basic answer co-evolved doesnt really explain the dilemma here)
OK this is just ridiculous. This guy who can't speak a lick of ancient Hebrew keeps insisting there is a contradiction in the Bible by ignoring basic rules of exegesis and an insistence on a 400 year old rendering.
Can anyone really think Moses would actually contradict himself only one chapter later, even if it were allegory?
You talk a lot of garbage.If you're saying that the English translation is in error, I'd be pleased to see your evidence for that.
That's the point, isn't it? If it was an allegory, it wouldn't be a contradiction.
There seems to be a difference of opinion in the two accounts, whereby the name for God is different in the two. The Yawehist, vs. the Elohist, in the estimation of many Biblical scholars.
Your argument is completely farcical.
How is it an assertion? What textual evidence supports your view?All you have is denial, and the assertion that the Bible is wrong. Not a very good position, I think.
The conflict lies in the rationale that "all the land animals evolved within Adams lifetime".Could you explain that last paragraph a bit more? Just trying to understand what you're saying is a conflict with respect to Adam and theistic evolution. So God creates life (let's say hundreds of millions of years ago). Adam then names the animals (sometime in the last 1 million years ago). So where does the literalist conflict come into play?
The conflict lies in the rationale that "all the land animals evolved within Adams lifetime".
Evolution does not allow for all of those land and flying species to evolve in less than millions of years. Adam did not live anywhere near long enough for said evolutionary process to take place.
He has done this time and time again. I gave a very good exegetical breakdown of the second chapter of James and the relationship between faith and works, and he responded by plugging his ears and posting the same thing repeatedly. I laid it out point by point, providing context, giving examples, and letting scripture interpret scripture. He pretended as though he didn't notice any of it. He just kept parroting James 2:24 again and again as if it were some kind of "I win" card. It's the kind of response that's typical of a man so set in his thinking that no amount of reason or scripture in the world can do a thing to change it. Such a man is not here to learn or swap ideas, but to prejudicially impose onto others his own view of reality.How is it an assertion? What textual evidence supports your view?
I am deeply concerned that what I'm fact is happening is that consistent and logical arguments are not being presented on both sides.
Yes bias exists, however when corrected, there must be movement towards an honest resolution.
One cannot present deeply flawed arguments, have the appropriate corrections pointed out, ignore those very very obvious mistakes...And fail to modify ones view!
That is a completely dishonest way to carry on. I honestly believe that is a person burying their head in the sand in order to convince themselves that the firecracker lying on the ground immediately behind their exposed private parts, when it does go off, won't hurt!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?