Young Earth Creationist gathering!

[Rize]

You may add me to your list. However, please be careful in what creationist arguments you subscribe to and use.

Case in point: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0113peterson.asp

 

[L'Anatra]

Originally posted by Hector Medina
RufusAtticus,

Thats just more bunk that we can defeat easily.
Espcially using new non-Hebrew (totally man-made) Bible versions to compare and contrast into contradiction...

[sarcasm] Hector, if you actually bothered to read what Rufus was saying there you might have a chance of understanding his point. Something tells me this "bunk" cannot be easily defeated. Something else tells me you know very little regarding translation from any language, let alone ancient ones. [/sarcasm]

Clearly, the story beginning in Genesis 2 is a separate account of creation. Genesis 2:18 through 2:22 are contradictory with Genesis 1 in the two ancient translations that I have any hope of reading (although, since I can't read the Hebrew, my argument may have little merit to you...) and practically every modern translation in other languages. (for the sake of time, I'll go over French, Spanish, and Italian)

Notice the key adverb in all the translations which says God formed the beasts and birds after and for Adam.

Genesis 2:19

Greek Septuagint: kai eplasen o Theos eti ek tes ges panta ta theria to tou agrou...
(Rough) Translation: And God formed from the earth all the beasts of the field... (kai is the ancient Greek conjunction meaning "and", signifying the event in verse 19 took place after verse 18)

Latin Vulgate: formatis igitur Dominus Deus de humo cunctis animantibus terrae...
Translation: Consequently, the Lord God formed from dirt all the beasts of the land... (igitur is the Latin adverb meaning "accordingly", "consequently", or "then")

Italian: Allora il Signore Dio plasmò dal suolo ogni sorta di bestie selvatiche...
Translation: Then the Lord God shaped from the soil every sort of wild beast... (allora is the Italian adverb meaning "then")

Spanish: Formó, pues, Jehová Dios de la tierra toda bestia del campo...
Translation: The Lord God formed, then, from the earth all the beasts of the field... (pues is a Spanish adverb meaning "then")

French Darby Bible: Et l'Éternel Dieu forma de la terre tous les animaux des champs...
Translation: And the Lord God formed from the earth all the beasts of the field... (et is the French conjunction meaning "and")

Note also, that the verb structures are in the perfect or active present tense (whatever form is the accepted one according to the rules of the language) and not the pluperfect. This indicates (again) that God formed the animals from the Earth after Adam...

Eplasen is the 3rd-person aorist active indicative form of the ancient Greek verb plasso, to form. Formatis is the 3rd-person active present indicative form of the Latin verb formare, to form. Plasmò is the 3rd-person remote past form of the Italian verb plasmare, to shape. Formó is the 3rd-person preterite (simple past) form of the Spanish verb formar, to form. Forma is the 3rd-person past historic form of the French verb former, to form.

Despite the fact that I can't read Hebrew, I find it interesting that all translations I can read convey the same exact idea: the beasts and birds were formed for Adam to name and pass his time with. Since they were made for Adam, they were clearly made after he was. Therefore, logically, this account of creation is contradictory with the account in Genesis 1. Am I missing something?

EDIT: clarity

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Hector Medina
Thats just more bunk that we can defeat easily.
Espcially using new non-hebrew(totally man-made) Bible versions to compare and contrast into contradiction .........

Although I have much reason to suspect that you are an atheist troll, I will respond to this.

The contradiction is not NIV versus NASB. It's order of creation between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

 

[Rize]

The key to this problem is that the Bible does not say that this is the first time that God created these animals out of the ground.

Would God have warped already created animals to Adam?  Made them walk/fly/swim?  Or simply create one additional copy of each one for naming purposes?

I've always seen Genesis 2 as a zoomed in version of the sixth day.

And the whole "plant of the field" thing in 2:5-7 is referring to the Garden of Eden not plants in general. 2:15 is the clue as it relates (again) that Adam was to take care of the garden (which is why it wasn't made until Adam was about to be placed there).  Or so my understanding goes.

 

[L'Anatra]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
The contradiction is not NIV versus NASB. It's order of creation between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

As I stated in my above post. This contradiction is in practically every translation I have ever encountered...

 

[Micaiah]

Of course, such a move is ludicrous since Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have different authors and different histories. AIG dismisses the Documentary Hypothesis, which was a (the?) major discovery in the last 200 years of biblical scholarship, by calling it "anti-christian" and simply asserting that Moses is the only writter. In other words, they don't even address the evidence that the documentary hypothesis offers. Basicly, they admit that if Moses didn't write it then all their creationist views are questionable. In other words, "Moses had to write the pentateuch, or we'd have to admit error."

I think you make a good point. The theory that there were several authors of Genesis has undermined the integrity of the book. Many Christian scholars now reject the theory.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Micaiah
I think you make a good point. The theory that there were several authors of Genesis has undermined the integrity of the book. Many Christian scholars now reject the theory.

That wasn't my point. It doesn't undemine the integrity of Genesis, just certain interpretations of Gensis and the integrity of people who keep asserting that their interpretation is the interpretation, i.e. God's Word (TM). Sorry, but you can't reject a hypothesis or theory simply because you find it "ichy." The basic argument put forth by AiG, and probably those Christian "scholars" you mention, is "the documentary hypothesis is wrong because otherwise I can't be right, and I know that I am right!" Do you see the problem with such an arrogent argument?

 

[Micaiah]

Despite the fact that I can't read Hebrew, I find it interesting that all translations I can read convey the same exact idea: the beasts and birds were formed for Adam

When I read the NIV, NKJV, and NASB versions, I see no reason to adopt the interpretation that the animals spoken of in verse 19 were created after Adam. It is simply a stand alone statement that they were created out of the ground. It does not give an explicit statement that contradicts what was taught in chapter 1.

If you want to relate the NASB 'then' of verse 18 to verse 19, why not assume that the helper refered to in verse 18 are the animals spoken of in verse 19. Obviously the context indicates otherwise. The verses that follow describe that Adam's helper was Eve. I am not a Hebrew scholar, but using contectual cues I see no reason to relate the 'then' used in the NASB to the animals spoken of in verse 19.

The context of this phrase is that Adam viewed all the animals, but was still lonely. That leads into a description of the creation of Eve. This passage is clearly a more detailed account of what was described in chapter 1. I don't see it as an attempt to give an order of creation. The order is explicitly stated in chapter 1.

Edit - spellign

 

[Micaiah]

No. Fossil dating is a well established science. Recovering ancient DNA is not. Thus you'd be grasping at straws to toss out geology because DNA appeared in your test tube. The conclusion that is drawn from such studies (and supported in many cases), is that the DNA that was isolated is not dinosaur DNA, but human (or bacterial) DNA that contaminated the sample. There is a reason why the journal of paleonucleic acids (or whatever it was called) is no longer in existance. The field was a bust.

AR, this was a statement you made on another thread. If something well established is contradicted by something that is less established, then you don't overthrow what is well established. While I may not agree with its application, I agree with the principle, and would use it in understanding these vesrses. This is prudence, not circular logic.

 

[RufusAtticus]

But Micaiah,

Why would God say "I will create you a helper" then bother looking at all the animals he had created, before going on to create a helper. If he says that he will create one, why does he then immediately in the next verse contradict himself by looking at thinks he already had created? Ethier way you slice it there is a conflict here, whether it is between the separate accounts of Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 or between the successive verses of Genesis 2:18 and 2:19, one exists.

 

[Micaiah]

I'm not sure I get your point. Either way, I only seek to show how ignoring context can lead to a variety of ridiculous interpretations if you ignore context.

 

[sulphur]

Getting nasty. Where are your mates ?

 

[Hector Medina]

Rize,

Your on my buddy list.


RufusAtticus,

I will admit last year I made mistakes when I got maliciously cocky and did make some insults.
That,I apologize for Satan influenced me on that.

But I've been called a "atheist troll" too much now and if you or any other evolutionist,atheist,scoffer or agnostics or whatevers does it again it will be reported and we will see what a mod could do.

I have to be making ultimatiums but its WRONG to just throw those kind insults at me like that.
You could do it through PM or email whatever but not in my threads(here)!

In Christ,

Hector

DISCLAIMER:
I know these are intended for PM only so I guarentee this will be my only ultimatium posted on this thread and all other problems will be reported to a Moderator.

 

[Hector Medina]

BTW:

This is now turning into a game of Cat & Mouse(if it hasen't been already).
And will go nowhere..............

--Hector

 

[Thaddaeus]

First of the contradiction you are seeing its a miss understanding, Genesis one is creatin of the earth genesis two iscreation of the Garden

SEcond obviously the day age theory is wrong for it says the evning and the morning, thatshowsthat it isa typical 24 hour day.
And scientist often use circular reasoning in their assumptions of how old things are

 

[sulphur]

Hence the mexican standoff

 

[Micaiah]

I will admit last year I made mistakes when I got maliciously cocky and did make some insults.
That,I apologize for Satan influenced me on that.

Well spoken, and I think AR is a decent enough bloke to accept the apology, and let the matter be forgotten.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Micaiah
I'm not sure I get your point. Either way, I only seek to show how ignoring context can lead to a variety of ridiculous interpretations if you ignore context.

Exactly, and as I have taken pains to show, when viewed in it's immediate context, Genesis 2:18-2:22, it is clear that the proper translation of "yitser" is "formed" and not "had formed."

BTW: Here is a site with the Torah transliterated.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Hector Medina
I will admit last year I made mistakes when I got maliciously cocky and did make some insults. That,I apologize for Satan influenced me on that.

No need to appologize. I don't think you ever insulted me because we have never really had a discussion. I viewed you as a troll early on and simply have ignored you. I just think you are insincere for among other things a statement that went along the llines "Yes, Hovind is a fraud, but that doesn't make him wrong." Not to mention saying "In Christ and Literal Bible" in the first post on this thread. That's my view. I could be wrong. But something is just not right, you seem too much like an over the top parody.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Thaddaeus
First of the contradiction you are seeing its a miss understanding, Genesis one is creatin of the earth genesis two iscreation of the Garden

That still doesn't solve the problem:
P (Genesis 1): plants, animals, then mankind, all created on different days.
J (Genesis 2): Adam, plants, animals, then Eve.

And scientist often use circular reasoning in their assumptions of how old things are

Such as. . . . Don't forget to support it with appropriate references and relevent, in context quotes from peer-reviewed scientific literature.