Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Have You Heard? There is Scripture That Proves Two Different Creations!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Rosenritter View Post
    That's a good example for showing where God presents alternatives.
    So if God is willing to limit our perception of the future, then what is wrong with God also limiting our understanding of history?

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Stripe View Post
      Except for the fact that Gen 1 has all the details and Gen 2 expands on only a few aspects, mostly those that Adam was party to.

      Yes, just think of a Novel. The prologue will take you deep into the story and GEN 1 does and the rest of the book tells how we got there. Gen 1 is the actual creation while the other (2-3) are the details.

      Blade

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Bladerunner View Post
        Yes, just think of a Novel. The prologue will take you deep into the story and GEN 1 does and the rest of the book tells how we got there. Gen 1 is the actual creation while the other (2-3) are the details. Blade
        Except that Gen. 1 has all the details, while Gen. 2 only focuses on a few aspects, mostly those involving Adam.
        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
        E≈mc2
        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
        -Bob B.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Stripe View Post
          Many people have been confused at what they’ve been told were two different creation accounts in these first two chapters. But we can see that this isn’t correct. Chapter 1 is the only “creation account,”
          Your copy and paste is terribly flawed. Tragically, the author doesn't even understand the meaning of a creation account. Granted, the second creation account is poorly focused but that's precisely what is to be expected when an author consults conflicted sources and then tries to write out the core message of a people's oral traditions.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Shubee View Post
            Your copy and paste is terribly flawed. Tragically, the author doesn't even understand the meaning of a creation account. Granted, the second creation account is poorly focused but that's precisely what is to be expected when an author consults conflicted sources and then tries to write out the core message of a people's oral traditions.
            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
            E≈mc2
            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
            -Bob B.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Stripe View Post
              I like the tablet theory of Genesis' authorship, which makes Moses a collater of previous material for Genesis.
              That's what I was thinking of.

              However, Wiseman saw that the colophons in the ancient tablets always were at the end, not the beginning. He applied this idea to the toledoth phrases in Genesis, and found that in every case it suddenly made good sense. The text just before the phrase “These are the generations of ... ” contained information about events that the man named in that phrase would have known about. That person would have been the logical one to write that part. In other words, each toledoth phrase contains the name of the man who probably wrote the text preceding that phrase. Or, in still other words, the book of Genesis consists of a set of tablets, each of which was written by an actual eye-witness to the events described therein. These tablets were finally compiled by Moses.

              Enough archaeological confirmation has been found so that many historians now consider the Old Testament, at least that part after about the eleventh chapter of Genesis, to be historically correct. It seems strange that seminary professors often still teach the old “doubtful criticism” theories, even though the basis on which they were started has now been thoroughly discredited.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Shubee View Post
                You're just forcing the text into your preconceived opinions by using fantastically unnatural gymnastics. If you can't admit that then you should spend some time looking for off-the-wall precedents.
                Whatever. Do you have a style of response with actual content?

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Shubee View Post
                  So if God is willing to limit our perception of the future, then what is wrong with God also limiting our understanding of history?
                  We aren't told all of history (and as such our perception is already limited) but where God has revealed history we have no reason to doubt it.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Rosenritter View Post
                    We aren't told all of history (and as such our perception is already limited) but where God has revealed history we have no reason to doubt it.
                    God has presented two creation accounts. Consequently, many doubt and slaphappily deny what a creation account is.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Shubee View Post
                      God has presented two creation accounts. Consequently, many doubt and slaphappily deny what a creation account is.
                      There are four accounts of the resurrection.
                      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                      E≈mc2
                      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                      -Bob B.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Shubee View Post
                        God has presented two creation accounts. Consequently, many doubt and slaphappily deny what a creation account is.
                        It seems to me that you'd have to be trying awfully hard to convince yourself to not understand it as already written.

                        Comment


                        • He seems to be saying that because there are two creation accounts, there is only one creation account.
                          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                          E≈mc2
                          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                          -Bob B.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                            He seems to be saying that because there are two creation accounts, there is only one creation account.
                            I meant that it reminds me of other instances where someone was trying really hard to be confused, to conjure conflict where there was none, such as "Were the birds created out of the water, or out of the dust? Bible contradicts itself" type of charges ( God brought forth flying birds from the waters in Genesis 1:20, but created a sample of every bird for Adam to name out of the dust in Genesis 2:19).

                            Genesis 1:20 KJV
                            (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 2:18-20 KJV
                            (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.
                            (20) And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

                            No contradiction for any logical person who is trying to read the story as written, but it remains one of those accusations you will find on the anti-Bible sites, that there are "conflicting accounts of when the animals were created." (Alleging that if the planet was populated with animals on days 4 and 5 than God is incapable of producing naming samples for Adam on day 6).

                            This also ties in because God's account of creation is in Genesis 1 and Adam's own writing is in Genesis 2.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                              Except that Gen. 1 has all the details, while Gen. 2 only focuses on a few aspects, mostly those involving Adam.

                              Stripe:your only focusing on Gen 2. Try the whole book of Genesis. I have been told that Gen is the real creation which I never agreed with. I have always seen gen 2 as a summary of Gen 1 but some time back I change my mind.

                              As you say, Gen 1 does have details of Creation however, the interaction of the male and female of(gen 1), the details of living creatures and the vegetation details, etc. in following chapters of how man got started seems to speak of a modern day prologue.

                              It is of no consequence either way, but it just struck me as a familiar way in modern novels to get the interest of the reader.

                              Hope you had a great Thanksgiving and have a great weekend ahead.

                              Blade

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Bladerunner View Post
                                Stripe:your only focusing on Gen 2.
                                Not really. Genesis 1 has the great majority of the details. Genesis 2 focuses on a few aspects, mostly linked to when Adam was involved.

                                I have always seen gen 2 as a summary of Gen 1 but some time back I change my mind.
                                That's probably for the best. Genesis 2 would be horrible as a summary. For that, look at Exodus 20.

                                As you say, Gen 1 does have details of Creation however, the interaction of the male and female of(gen 1), the details of living creatures and the vegetation details, etc. in following chapters of how man got started seems to speak of a modern day prologue.
                                I don't know what that means.

                                It is of no consequence either way.
                                OK, then let's stick with my appraisal.

                                Hope you had a great Thanksgiving and have a great weekend ahead.
                                There's none of that where I'm from. But hope yours was good.
                                Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                                E≈mc2
                                "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                                "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                                -Bob B.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X