Problems with the biblical Genesis story (split)

@Knowledge --

Why the hell would I ask you anything? You don't have any credentials and you've so far displayed a grossly disturbing lack of knowledge about pretty much everything. All you have are your opinions and I'm afraid that I'm after a bit more than that. Your opinions are already noted, if I have a sudden stroke I might come inquiring though.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I offer you my hand, to take you to all that is glorious, and you insult me? I will hold you in chains until the final hours. I will keep you blind deaf and dumb should you rise again. In that final hour repent you, or I will throw you into the fire myself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh shut up you arrogant prawn.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ha.

 

@Dyw --

Hey, don't insult prawns like that.

 

@Knowledge --

Ooh, threats of damnation for not believing what you believe, what a bold defiance of an established trend. <sarcastic applause>

Anytime you're willing to debate like an adult, you know, without sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring everything that contradicts you, then I'm here. Until then you can take your childish behavior elsewhere.

 

bout time..he should have been banned along time ago..

 

I think he may have been a troll. I don't mean this pejoratively, but descriptively. I started to get the feelling he was did not necessarily at all believe what he was saying, that he had other goals for making his posts.

 

Well, to be fair, humble prawns are easy fodder for Argyropelecus hemigymnus. If you were a decapod crustacean, you know that without chutzpah, you will be culled.

 

@Pineal --

He may indeed be a troll, but I don't think so. His views haven't varied widely enough to fit the norm that I've observed for trolls. Most trolls tend to say whatever will get the most attention and they do so in many forums. To be fair, Sciforums tends to be a bit self-limiting as far as forums go(at least when compared to many other online forums), but still, the lack of variety in Knowledge91's stated beliefs doesn't lend itself too well to trolling.

 

Jan:

What does a Bible literalist do with the issue of locating Eden by the confluence of the four referenced rivers?

You have the Tigris and Euphrates which flow into Iraq from the North, from which you would infer that Eden was in Turkey. The names of the other two rivers have been lost to us. But one of them "flows around the whole land of Kush". There would be no confluence possible since the Land of the Kush is way on the other side of the Red Sea:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'm having a "revelation" that Jan's next post will be a completely subjective interpretation of the scripture.

 

What would you regard as an objective interpretation, your new friends and accomplises AiG's?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

jan.

 

I haven't got that far in my analasys.


jan.

 

No one is claiming anyone PURPOSEFULLY made the words confusing. As you have admitted, the author may not have known at the time that his story would later become so important - so he may not have taken much care in his telling of it.

It is. It even contradicts itself. Genesis 1 says cattle came first; Genesis 2 says man came first.

Sounds like you are confusing yourself by interchanging and reinterpreting the words instead of taking them literally.

Agreed. You have just pointed out another potential error in the Bible. There are a lot of them.

 

billvon,

Explain this then:

genesis 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had
rested from all his work which God created and made.

And you have admitted (by the same token) that he may have know at the time, so they cancel each other out as we don't ACTUALLY know.

Explained.

No. One is a quote from Gods' perspective, and the other from a mortal
mans perspective. The words have been used literally.

You mean a tranlation error, like ''bara'' and ''asah''?
What makes you think it is a BIBLICAL error?

jan.

 

It is the end of the first creation story. The second one begins in Gen 2:4.

Correct. Which, again, answers your question - the reason he was not more careful is that he may not have known how important his story would later become.

So some parts are not accurate due to their being written from a mortal man's perspective? Also agreed.

Because it's in the Bible.

 

billvon,

Makes no sense unless you're purposefully trying to make the Bible out to be nonsense. Prior to the formation of Adam and Eve, God created ''mankind''.

Try again.

The question of the authors state of mind is not actually known, so why do you keep bringing it up. I'm assuming he knew the importance it would have, because documents of such importance and less, are more than likely treated as important.

Why would you think he wouldn't attatch importance to it?
And if he was casually interchangeing ''bara'' and ''asah'', why did he
use both of them to describe God's work in the verse that I gave you.

Please answer that. Thanks.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I don't get what you're driving at.
Can you clarify. Thanks.?


[

''Bara'' and ''asah'' isn't in the translated bible.
So again why is it a biblical error?


jan.

 

@Jan --

And there's your problem.

It was an oral history, each family at the time had a slightly different one and it changed down the generations. The author probably took his family's oral history and wrote it down, there's no reason for him(and we can be fairly safe in assuming that it was a he) to think that it would be important at all. And there's always the possibility that Genesis is a compilation of oral histories. Basically you have absolutely no justification for assuming that the author, or more likely authors, would know of the future "importance" of Genesis. So this is just one more unfounded assumption.

Also, you never answered my question. Even granting your imaginary make/create dichotomy, and even granting that it's just talking about making the Earth(despite the fact that Genesis explicitly states that he created the stars), you still haven't said how the whole "six day" thing jives with science.

Even if you interpret the word to mean "a thousand years" which is the longest interpretation of the word(and thus, most favorable to you, though that definition is ruled out by context) the author/s use, that's still only six thousand years and we know, for a fact, that it took the Earth longer than six thousand years to form and it took roughly half a billion years for life to first form on the planet. Thus, a literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong.