Problems with the biblical Genesis story (split)

Er, my question was:

Hint: check the wavelength of light emitted.
Any plant life around at the time (which I to tend disagree with as likely) wouldn't be plant life as we know it.

Not supported by the text.

What is your point here?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

James R,

Here are my contributions, aside from my previous ones...

http://www.thejournal.org/church-of...th-recreated-after-an-initial-creation-2.html

http://www.nils4.info/MakeOrCreate/bara.htm

You forgot to add that it is a deliberate intention to create the illusion.

If you're talking about the supernatural, you most probably mean ''magik'', a
term coined to distinguish it from the illusionist.

''Crowley claimed that "it is theoretically possible to cause in any object any change of which that object is capable by nature''...

taken from

No. I'm refering to claims about God.
You're the one appealing to religion.

There's nothing ''idiosyncratic'' about believing in God.

Where?

So posting explanitory links are waste of time then, unless they are from
you or another atheist in agreement?

That's not the point. It does NOT mean that.
''Wicked'' does NOT mean ''good'', but it can be used in such a way.
No serious article would interchange the meaning without explanation.

To get a good understanding of genesis we have to accept that bara means create, asah means make.

LOL! An interpretation that stands up, no need extra apps to prop it up.
For example dictionary definition, english and hebrew. You on the other hand have taken shelter of a Christian organisation who clearly need the words to be interchangable to corellate with their the universe was created in 6x24 hour days philosophy.
Your second link appears to be in favour of the real meanings of the word, more than them being interchangable.

Okay. LOL!!!

Yes, I did read what you wrote, and I responded to it. You said...

What you're agreeing with, is not a fact. It is an opinion, an obviously biased one at that. You have been presented with the facts, ie, dictionary definitions, english and hebrew. Plus using the correct meanings of the words, debunks the idea of a 6 day creation, young earth creationist, and the unscientific notion of the plants being created before the sun and moon.
All nonsensical claims which rely on fabrication to maintain them.

Name the experts you defer to, who are in agreement with your idea.

I think the authority on the subject would be who understand the language.
Even a dictionary is more of an authority on this issue, than the answersingenesis link.

I've given you the best authority, namely the definitions, so now it's for you
to step up and explain why the correct meaning do NOT stand, and why the incorrect meaning do.

But you are incorporating the idea of interchanging the meanings of words, instead of reading and accepting that what is written, is what it means as per the original language. The meaning that comes from that act (with regard to said section), renders the bible nonsensical, whereas using the correct meanings doesn't.

You seem okay with this, but put of by the idea that it is not nonsensical when read with the correct meaning of the words.

No they're not. There manipulations of nature, in a way that we can't percieve directly. Magic, is showing everybody a hat with nothing inside, then abracadabra, a rabbit appears out of thin air. That's not how God works in the bible.

It's a given.
At no time does it say that God created the material known as matter.
Everything that came about WAS material. So matter must have there to begin with.

Because without the presence of spirit, matter is essential formless, and chaotic. It explains this in the second or third verse in genesis.

There's nothing dishonest in my answer.
I didn't mean or imply conspiracy.
You can't just say I'm being dishonest because your prediction was wrong, or because to you, that's what I should have meant. That's bad practice.
And insulting.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Erm, if you use the words that are written, literally, then whenever that word comes up, it must still be understood with it's originial meaning, therefore there MUST be an explanation why the words were used side by side.

To default to, 'they must be interchangable because they have similar meanings', is not acceptable when reading a serious document, unless it particularly states that words are used interchangably.


jan.

 

bilvon,

Because that particular part of the bible DOES make sense when read using the correct meanings of the words, as opposed to interchanging because you feel like it. And the whole point of reading something, is to understand it.

You're suggesting that it doesn't make sense, because we decide to interchange the words, therefore it is the fault of the author.

I don't see how the authors wouldn't have known the impact such a document would have on the world.

It says; These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.

If you notice I have conjoined these two verses, as there is only a comma which separates them, besides them being 2 different verses.

It is explaining WHEN these generations were created.
If you read the Qu'ran, there are accounts when Adam was in heaven learning the names of all the animals. The same account where Iblis (Satan) was disqualified from that place.

It goes on to say...


But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
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.

And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

It stands to reason, more than not, that when Adam was created, the earth was already populated.

I don't get the point you're making here.
It's obvious straight off the bat, that it's an analogy.

jan.

 

@Jan --

Wait, you actually take the book of Genesis seriously? Why on earth would you do something that stupid?

 

You want to know then read Life started on Planet Mercury? XXX.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=29842 and get the whole story.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You mean you don't?

Why not?


jan.

 

@Jan --

Because it's quite obvious that it's a work of fiction that only has the barest relationship with reality, there's no reason for anyone to take it seriously.

 

And you're quite sure of this?


jan.

 

Wrong.
And it's something YOU aren't doing either.

Unless it states so?
Also incorrect.
It's not a dictionary.
Words are words.

 

Wow, not only did you fail completely to answer any of the questions that you quoted you also managed to change the subject to a crank claim.
Well done.

 

Dywyddyr,

Why?

Elaborate?

Why?

And when someone write a document it is usually for the purpose
of others to understand.


jan.

 

But did you read the thread in the link (I'm still unable to post links correctly as yet sorry.)?
I blame this multiquoting formating for unanswered questions. Ask a clear question you might get a clear answer.

 

You have been shown why.

More of your dishonesty.
I have pointed out to you previously that you are claiming that the words don't mean what they do (with regard to Adam): in other words while exhorting everyone to use the "strict interpretation" (which is a false usage) YOU personally have decided that on at least one occasion your "personal interpretation" is "more" correct than the approach you are advocating.

Read the sentence underneath the comment.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hence they will use words as they are actually used in ordinary life.

 

You know I've read it. I stated so where you brought it up in a different thread.

A clear question?
Sure, I have a few:
From where did you get the idea to promote the nonsensical claims you make in that thread?
Are you at all aware of something humanity has at its disposal (a fairly recent invention): science?
Do you intend to use it at any point?
Why have you decided to eschew rationality?
Was it a conscious decision?

 

Usually, but not always. Stories are often told for purposes of bragging, amusement, education etc. Indeed, the Socratic method involves stories that ask questions, rather than making others understand something.

 

Dywyddyr,

Not true.
You are being evasive, and dishonest.

No dishonesty here, other than your dishonest tactic of constantly trying to label me as such.

If we read the bible literally, then we must use the words that are given, and relate to their actual meaning, as opposed to ones that suit our worldview (ahem). If ''bara'' is used side by side with ''asah'', then we should still use the original meanings. Therefore we have to work out what they mean, rather
make up our own meaning, purposely rendering the document nonsensical because it suit our whims (ahem).

Irrelevant.
When writing an important document meant for other people to view, one is more likely to choose ones words carefully, and not interchange meanings expecting others to be adept in the art of mind-reading.

Try again.

jan.

 

More lies Jan?
I have given a link and quotes that show your strict interpretation is incorrect and so has James R.
Reported. You're obviously trolling now.

Jan, I SHOWN where you have been dishonest. And it's happened in other threads where I also showed it.

Yet, with regard to the quotes about Adam you did exactly that: make up your own meaning and dismissed the word that was written.
I.e. dishonesty on your part.

Not so.

Except YOU HAVE BEEN SHOWN that you are wrong on a strict interpretation. This is YOUR claim ONLY, and one you have consistently failed to substantiate.

 

Then why did you replace the actual words of Genesis 2:4 with your own words? Because you felt like it?

Because as you have already admitted, they may not have known that their document would become important. It could have been created by the elder of a tribe repeating an oral tradition to his son. He may well not have known what it would become.

No. See, you've just replaced the actual words of the Bible with something new because you felt like it. Here's what the Genesis 2 ACTUALLY says on the topic:

Genesis 2:7 -Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

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.

It is quite clear on the order - man, THEN cattle.

Hey, I'm all for reinterpreting the Bible however you like. But if you reinterpret it yourself then criticize others for doing the same thing, you're being a little hypocritical.

Nope. Most people do not know that there was a gate in the wall around Jerusalem large enough to (barely) fit a camel. Thus the analogy doesn't work, because taken literally there is no way to fit a camel through the eye of a needle.

It would be like telling a woman "you have the body of a Ruben" - if she did not know that Ruben was famous for his fat women, she would not understand the comment.