Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
What beginning?
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
What beginning?
You post this while literally doing what I just said you did. If you hate my "diversions" so much why do YOU keep responding to them like this?
I gave my arguments for why I think that the context of Genesis 1 suggests that the author was more likely to intend literal days than figurative eras. I don't really have anything else to say on that matter. You responded by saying that Gen 2:4 contradicts this, which is kind of hard to deal with because the Gen 2:4 onward creation account contradicts the Gen 1 account in a lot of ways. That doesn't mean that Gen 1 doesn't say that creation happened in 6 days.
I also pointed out that Gen 1 refers to the creation of the earth and the heavens before the creation week even started, and Gen 2:4 referring to that same creation of earth and heavens. Maybe the two chapters have a different idea of what those terms mean?
Gen 2:1 closes the actual creation process, and from then on, leads right up to the fall of man, as that verse says everything was completed.
Everything else that follows isn't the actual creation process, but after creation was done. Genesis 2:1 makes that glaringly obvious, that creation was done at that point.
7 And 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.
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.
Those are not acts of creation???22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Those are not acts of creation???
All of these problems arise when you try to reconcile Gen 1-2:4 with Gen 2:4-25.. there are so many things that suggest two different creation myths written by two different authors (not just contradicting each other, but the narrative flow, the type of language, the focus of subject, even using a different name for God), that you think are coherent because they appear in the same book now and because religion/tradition says so.
I know you reject that wholesale and I'm sure you'll call me wrong/an idiot/whatever but I can't really talk about this and pretend I think it's supposed to be coherent.
How is it not an account of creation when it describes God creating things?
How is it not an account of creation when it describes God creating things?
Let me ask you a question:
Does a change in topic, tone, language means that a book automatically has a different author than the one claimed?
lol, dont answer his question, but pose another question.
Let me ask you a question:
Does a change in topic, tone, language means that a book automatically has a different author than the one claimed?
They believe that carbon dating is a big sneaky lie.
It's not just a change in topic, but a change in writing style and narrative purpose, and yes, these things are strong hints of authorship. It doesn't mean that they're necessarily so but an unbiased literary analysis will trend in that direction. I think "why would the same author start using a different name for God" is a legitimate and fundamental question.
What it basically boils down is applying the same standards of literary analysis to the Bible that are applied to other ancient works, no more or less.
He's busy getting his evidence together that proves he was fired for his beliefs.
It's not just a change in topic, but a change in writing style and narrative purpose, and yes, these things are strong hints of authorship. It doesn't mean that they're necessarily so but an unbiased literary analysis will trend in that direction. I think "why would the same author start using a different name for God" is a legitimate and fundamental question.
What it basically boils down is applying the same standards of literary analysis to the Bible that are applied to other ancient works, no more or less.
I'm not sure what more you need. Genesis changes topics completely from chapters 1 to 2 -- from creation, to the fall of man. If the "style" stayed the same, then I'd be suspect of collusion in an an attempt to hide dual authorship.
Sometime, I call my wife by her name, call her "sweetheart", or "baby". Does that mean I'm not her husband depending on how I address her?
Modern scholars fail every ancient text before allowing the text to fail them. Maybe a century ago we had unbiased scholarship, but nowadays they're (ancient texts) all guilty until proven innocent.
Ah, the theory that G-d made the Earth quite recently but made everything look really old because He is a dick who wants as many of us as possible to stay the Hell off His Heavenly lawn. Literally, stay the Hell off.I happen to believe the Earth is only about 10,000 to 12,000 years old, so for someone to find a fossil that dates back to only 4,000 years ago isn't a problem for me.
Nope, but although I can understand the academic world of Vulgo vel pereo I dislike changes from what I learned forty years ago unless it brings true advancement to the science. It's the eternal war between lumpers and splitters. Nonetheless, whether one is a lumper (monophylist) or a splitter (polyphilest) one cannot lump together Old World monkeys and great apes as monkeys on the one hand, and New World monkeys on the other. Either apes, New World monkeys, and Old World monkeys are three separate monophyletic groups within Simmiiformes, or apes and Old World monkeys are two separate monophyletic groups within Catarrhini, but either way hominids are not monkeys. Otherwise the superfamily Hominoidea serves no purpose.Are you still following nonphylogenetic taxonomy werepossum?
It is clear "the beginning" is referring to right before the big bang. God created the heavens and the earth far too close to each other. Upon said creation, the words "I dun goofed" were uttered as the mass all collided in a violent explosion, creating the expanding universe we now know.
This isn't at all what I'm talking about when I refer to writing "style", more to the big shift you'd see in the way people write centuries apart, and in the type of literature and intended audience. If I was writing an op-ed piece in contemporary style then suddenly inserted a Shakespearean sonnet I think you'd question the authorship
first they let the gays get married and now people are dating elements of the periodic table. I KNEW IT!
Ah, the theory that G-d made the Earth quite recently but made everything look really old because He is a dick who wants as many of us as possible to stay the Hell off His Heavenly lawn. Literally, stay the Hell off.
Or maybe G-d is actually gay and made everything look really old just because He likes antiquing on Sunday. After all, He didn't create woman until Adam started bitching about there not being any. Kind of makes one wonder . . .
Nope, but although I can understand the academic world of Vulgo vel pereo I dislike changes from what I learned forty years ago unless it brings true advancement to the science. It's the eternal war between lumpers and splitters. Nonetheless, whether one is a lumper (monophylist) or a splitter (polyphilest) one cannot lump together Old World monkeys and great apes as monkeys on the one hand, and New World monkeys on the other. Either apes, New World monkeys, and Old World monkeys are three separate monophyletic groups within Simmiiformes, or apes and Old World monkeys are two separate monophyletic groups within Catarrhini, but either way hominids are not monkeys. Otherwise the superfamily Hominoidea serves no purpose.
In the beginning G-d Created the Heavens and the Earth and then said "Holy Me! What the Hell was THAT?" And Lucifer said "I don't know, but I'm changing my name and moving to Hell just in case it happens again." So reads the Book of Possum.
As far as reading the Bible literally, two thousand years after Christ' sacrifice we still aren't anywhere near understanding G-d's mysterious plan. Are we really going to debate what people thousands of years ago got right and what they got wrong? Seems to me that's like arguing over a toddler's written account of a Feynman lecture, and while we could certainly argue over the significance of a particular shade of Crayola, I doubt it sheds much light on Feynman's literal message.
Yes, but that doesn't mean creationists cannot be scientists. Science isn't a members-only club.
It's extremely Apocryphal as I haven't yet gotten around to starting it, but probably not one of those you hear about.Must be one of those Apocryphal books we hear about.
That's funny, all I ever said was that the two creation accounts in Gen 1-2 appear to have different authorships, I guess I missed all this stuff I said about the rest of Genesis...