The Order of Creation

[katiesevenfour]

Would anyone be able to shed light on why there are two differing orders of creation within the bible? To my mind it's because it was changed by men over the years and they didn't edit very well and remove their contradictions once the new material had been written. I'm sure there are other views than mine. The orders are as below. In the second account, women are made from a man, not equal to men as in the first account. I would guess because this is a reflection of the times it was written in when men were seeking to dominate women and make them second class citizens, an achievement that still exists to this day in many countries around the world. Not an achievement of God who considers all beings equal regardless of gender, colour, race, religion or sexuality in my humble opinion. It's humans who have a problem with the boiling pot of diversity alive on our planet today, not God.

The Differing Orders of Creation:

Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.
Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.

Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27 Birds were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Birds were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Animals were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 Adam was created first, woman sometime later.

[Slopeshoulder]

"But it's not in any way an accurate historical account and was never meant to be."

Care to back that assertion?

Sure, I refer you to every Bible 101 class in every mainstream university, seminary, or divinity school that, by definition, takes higher criticism seriously. as well s the settled consensus among scholars, commentators and spiritual leaders outside of fundy and fringe (now's a good time to reach for a mirror) circles. So my "back up," about which you seem so unaware, could fill several libraries. I'm amazed you or anyone has to ask. It's sort of like the grown up version of saying i know you are but what am i when confronted with basic turth claims.
Have you accepted that the earth is round, or shall we search for back up for that too?
Genesis as history is an utterly debunked and wrong headed notion that does violence to scripture.
If you want more, I refer you to the libraries that catalog the last several hundred years of theological writing and biblical exegesis and criticism.

I think you're under the assumption that the general "scholarly" theory

What precisely is "scholarly" about scholarly?
Can you establish that with all perfection before proceeding? personally? Scientifically? Mathematically? With full understanding of the psyches of those involved, maybe throwing in some time travel?

regarding the Documentary Hypothesis somehow proves what was for sure and what was not and what was intended by the original author.

No, the documentary hypothesis, in some variation, is accepted by all non-fundy scholars and academic institutions and seminaries.
The original intent is more like the original function, of mythic literature in general. Not that of an author of history. This is also accepted generally, to the extent that to question it in toto rather than in quibble places one outside of polite civilized society. This is a fact. Do a poll or a lit. survey if %'s are your thing.

That's nice

Awww...

that you feel the "proof" of your assertion of which you think I'm "unaware of", could fill libraries, but that's not exactly backing your assertions and claims which you are required to do when asked,

I refer to a unquestionable consensus. I am factually correct regarding the extent of the literature and the consensus. It's not a feeling thing. That is as close to mathematical proof as you can ask for.
I have better things to do with my time than present to you the content of those libraries, or to besmirch myself with even engaging this topic beyond merely to let the OP (and readers) know that genesis as history is a debunked, promitive, and silly idea that they can forego.

and your "grown up" comment I could possibly interpret as an insult, just possibly.

Well, knock yourself out, if the shoe fits.

The Earth is most definitely round, we have photographs from Space for that.

But we knew it was spherical long before we were able to go to space or take photographs, at least enough to know it wasn't flat.

But what kind of evidence do we have to show the Genesis account is incorrect exactly?

Again, visit your local seminary library, assuming it's non-fundy.

You say it is "utterly debunked". Please, feel free to show how.

See above.

If you want to use scientific proofs, link to the exact data for examination.

You're kidding, right? This is science? math?
Category error.
Again, the library awaits.

SO back your assertion or do as you are required to do and retract your claim if you cannot adequately show evidence for your claim.

I have told you what the consensus is and where the evidence may be found. I am under no responsibility to recreate it in this forum.

You said it was "never meant to be". Okay, so please prove the original intent of the author. Not just a theory by a modern concensus by modern scholars, but with actual "good evidence".

Are you suggesting that the original author's psyche is available to us?
Lit. ciritics would wonder if it matters anyway.
What DOES matter, and which I already referred to, is that this story was part of oral tradition, set down by a scribe, probably with theological intent and literary talent of his own, and that it is in form and content and purpose MYTHIC and cultic. It isn't history and never was. And in my opinion, to say otherwise in 2012 is as peurile as to say something as anti-civilization as what we hear in racisms and conspiracy theories and things like that. Genesis 1 and 3 are history?? REALLY? Is debating that, even here, beneath us all? I'd say so, other than to correct the naive and uninformed, as I did in my first post responding to the OP as a PSA kind of thing.

It is one thing to cite scholarly arguments of which you think I"m "unaware" of,

Well, you seem unaware. But in fairness, you may be uncomprehending or in denial.
Re: burden, the burden falls on he who would question the established consensus of civilization as expressed in scholarship and in clerical circles. cana you point to a non-fundy peer reviewed paper that makes the case that Genesis 1 and 2 are history?

it's another to say that they effectively prove anything about the intent of the original authors.

Addressed above. To argue against consensus and civilization from the fringe, independant of any peer reviewed journals or established institutions may work for some, but it is far less of a proof than anything I've referenced.
But I never said anything about authors intent. More accurately, I implied community cultic intent viz. a myth story. How myth stories were used among ancient peoples is also available in your library; I am too busy having a life to summarize it.

So are we going to see some backup or are we going to see a retraction or are we going to see more "grown up" comments?

No. Lol.

I also would use a more respectable term than "fundy".

I think you mean to say "respectful" not "respectable."
I type fundy because fundamentalist is too long to type. Really. No disrespect meant. Like Xty vs. Christianity in academic practice. Or nazi vs. national socialist, or bolshy vs. bolshevikcommunard. Call me a mod, a lib, a crit, whatever. Or suggest an abbreviation you prefer and consider more respectful.
But whether it's fundy or fundamentalist, neither is more respectable in civilized society.

And your "mirror" comment is a defacto ad hominem.

No, it's a recommendation based on an assessment of facts as revealed in your many posts; do you deny that you represent a fringe position (vast minority, independent scholarship)?

I love how much ad hominem I get when I ask secularists to simply back their claims personally.

I couldn't comment about secularists. I'm a Christian.

[Shermana]

What precisely is "scholarly" about scholarly?

That is a good question in itself. It refers to people in acadamia generally who have degrees, though they are often in disagreement with each other so it's not exactly a golden seal of approval for their views. Even when they often agree, there will be dispute.

Can you establish that with all perfection before proceeding? personally? Scientifically? Mathematically? With full understanding of the psyches of those involved, maybe throwing in some time travel?

Says the one who insists what was the intent of the original author? Very strange.

No, the documentary hypothesis, in some variation, is accepted by all non-fundy scholars and academic institutions and seminaries.

That's nice, perhaps you think that somehow makes it true in your imagination judging by your assertion.

The original intent is more like the original function, of mythic literature in general.

And of course, you know what the original intent was, by your assertion. Apparently the authors of the OT and NT who referenced Adam, or the Apocryphal writers didn't get the message that you know.

Not that of an author of history. This is also accepted generally, to the extent that to question it in toto rather than in quibble places one outside of polite civilized society. This is a fact. Do a poll or a lit. survey if %'s are your thing.

What's a fact is that you made an assertion that you know what the intent of the author is. I don't care if it's a fact that most if not nearly all authors agree with the concept, if you think that constitutes proof, well then, feel free to believe that.

Awww...

You find something cute?

I refer to a unquestionable consensus.

Concensus among one segment of acadamia, no matter how much you hate the "fundies" as you refer to them as, does not constitute what the defacto truth is. If you don't understand this, that's not my problem, but you don't got to act condescending about it.

I am factually correct regarding the extent of the literature and the consensus.

Well then you should phrase it in such a way that you're not asserting it as matter of fact but as the consensus opinion among non-conservative scholars. There's many positions I take that is opposed to non-conservative scholars, but I seriously wish it was so easy to brush off things like Pauline authorship of Ephesians and the Pastorals by just saying "All the scholars say so", it's such a bother having to actually debate WHY to the "fundies", I guess you like bypassing this step. Appeal to authority does not make a claim correct, apparently you are either unaware of this or something.

It's not a feeling thing. That is as close to mathematical proof as you can ask for.

I don't understand why it's close to mathematical proof if one camp agrees on something. Opinions change. Pre-Adamite race theory was nearly universal until the religious revival movements of the late 1800s when the DH came about. If you consider it "Mathematical proof" that speaks volumes.

I have better things to do with my time than present to you the content of those libraries, or to besmirch myself with even engaging this topic beyond merely to let the OP (and readers) know that genesis as history is a debunked, promitive, and silly idea that they can forego.

So that's a refusal to back your claims then? Thank you.

Well, knock yourself out, if the shoe fits.

We'll see who knocks himself out...

But we knew it was spherical long before we were able to go to space or take photographs, at least enough to know it wasn't flat.

The mere fact you compare the two subjects speaks volumes, as if you actually think they're the same concept.

Again, visit your local seminary library, assuming it's non-fundy.

You are required to back your claims here and not just say "Go to the library".

You say it is "utterly debunked". Please, feel free to show how.

So that's no actual reply, thank you.

You're kidding, right? This is science? math?
Category error.
Again, the library awaits.

Again, you made an assertion as if it were matter of fact, what awaits is you presenting an actual source for your claim, otherwise, it looks like you are adamantly refusing to do your homework for the board.

I have told you what the consensus is and where the evidence may be found. I am under no responsibility to recreate it in this forum.

Oh you aren't required to back up your claims with sources? What you presented is the consensus of thought of a particular branch of scholarship, which may constitute the majority, but does not constitute everything. If all I had to do to disprove Pauline authorship of the Pastorals was say "Most scholars disagree it was by Paul" without getting into things like the use of the word "Deacon", my job would be much easier in that regard.

Are you suggesting that the original author's psyche is available to us?

No, that's what YOU are suggesting. Are you serious? You are the one who said that it was never the author's intent. If you would have phrased it as "Most scholars think..." then it would have been different, but you are saying that you know, because of modern concensus, while REFUSING to discuss WHY they hold this view, and you say that holding a view that the authors intended it literally does "violence" to scripture, which can be viewed as basically an uncivil attack on literalists.

Lit. ciritics would wonder if it matters anyway.

Right, that actually kinda confirms my suspicion. Hoping to just brush it over without getting into the specifics. Thank you for demonstrating. I've demonstrated that the main reason of contention, the contrasting accounts, may just be a matter of misinterpretation of the text, such as use of the article to mean "The land" of the garden rather than the Earth itself, and a pre-adamite race. The pre-adamite view was the "concensus" view of the 1700-1800s.

What DOES matter, and which I already referred to, is that this story was part of oral tradition, set down by a scribe, probably with theological intent and literary talent of his own, and that it is in form and content and purpose MYTHIC and cultic.

Of course there's "theological intent", however you do not know if it was meant to be purely theological or actual history in the mind of the scribe. If you say you do, because of agreement on the Documentary Hypothesis, feel free to think you do, but you are ultimately shucking and jiving from backing your claims as if "Go to a library" somehow works. I'd like to see what happens if I said "Go to a library" if I was arguing about Pauline authorship. I'd lose that argument instantly!

It isn't history and never was.

So there you go again saying that you know it was never meant to be history. Well I disagree. And if you think I do "violence" to scripture because I believe the original author was intending to portray a historical account, feel free to think that.

And in my opinion, to say otherwise in 2012 is as peurile as to say something as anti-civilization as what we hear in racisms and conspiracy theories and things like that.

Calling it "peurile" to believe what I and hundreds of millions of others do and "Anti-civilization" and comparing it to racism and "Conspiracy Theory" (I'm assuming by that statement you think there are no such things as conspiracies and never were or something) in MY opinion, is total desparation, especially in the light that you are repeatedly refusing to get an actual source for your claim. You obviously had plenty of time to make this lengthy response, you could have listed one or two links with some quotes to discuss the facts. You didn't.

Genesis 1 and 3 are history?? REALLY?

I think so. You want to say something about it?

Is debating that, even here, beneath us all?

If you think debating a subject here is "beneath us all", perhaps you'd be better off on other debate forums where they don't discuss such things, especially where you don't have to back your claims.

I'd say so, other than to correct the naive and uninformed, as I did in my first post responding to the OP as a PSA kind of thing.

Personally I think people who believe in the DH are "Naive and uninformed' even if there is a "Scholarly consensus" on the matter, and that's a subject for another thread. But if your response to a request to back your claim is to call a view "naive and uninformed", that speaks volumes.

Well, you seem unaware. But in fairness, you may be uncomprehending or in denial.

I am very much in "denial" of the claims made by the DH hypothesis and the scholars who support it, that doesn't mean I'm "uncomprehending", I think I comprehend their arguments just fine, I think THEY are the ones uncomprehending, but that's for another discussion. In fact, I even made a whole thread about the DH before, many fell into the same land mines trying to defend it.

Re: burden, the burden falls on he who would question the established consensus of civilization as expressed in scholarship and in clerical circles.

Nope. The burden falls on anyone who makes a claim. As for "civlization", you must think that for some reason teh "Fundy" scholars have absolutely no say in this "civilization", which speaks volumes. There are plenty of them. Like I said, if it was so easy to simply dismiss Pauline advocates of Ephesians and the Pastorals by saying "Most scholars don't think it was Paul" when they asked me why I don't think they're by Paul, it would be SO much easier. But I have to actually list their arguments and reasons and make quotes quite often. Perhaps you think this subject somehow is different.

cana you point to a non-fundy peer reviewed paper that makes the case that Genesis 1 and 2 are history?

I do not have access to journals from my house, regardless though, the "peer-reviewed" world is overwhelmingly secular. Let me see what I can find. I will look for the exact article, but here is an Israeli journal that is discussing and pointing out the problems with the DH, which I predict will come crashing down in the next few decades as it is exposed for what I believe it is, a fraudulent baseless theory based on misinterpretations and defficieint lingual studies. I will try to see what I can find in a follow up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megadim_%28journal%29



http://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2010/12/0 ... interview/

Berman attended Princeton University, and holds a doctorate in Bible from Bar-Ilan University. He studied at Yeshivat Har Etzion and received his ordination from the Chief Rabbinate. His prior book is Created Equal: How the Bible Broke with Ancient Political Thought . Go read it. It has gotten favorable reviews and even those who criticize parts of the book have been extremely charitable. It claims that the Pentateuch is history’s first blueprint for a society where theology, politics, and economics embrace egalitarian ideals, by reconstituting ancient norms and institutions. Created Equal is a popular work that used much of the current scholarly literature comparing ancient Near Eastern religion and Israelite religion, including those of Norman K. Gottwald who blurbed the book.

Berman’s new project is to respond, in some way, to Biblical source criticism as it is found today. He acknowledges that the traditional documentary hypothesis has been heavily modified and one should not set up a straw man to refute. He also directly refers to new approaches such as the supplemental model. He freely volunteers his affinity for Evangelical authors like Kenneth Kitchen, Alan Millard, Gordon Wenham (all in the UK, and all emeritus), and in the US, Richard Hess. But which version of the supplemental model is forefront in his mind is less certain. In the meantime, one can get a sense of the field from the much acclaimed Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (available as pdf here and from scribd here), William Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book, and John Van Seters, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor� in Biblical Criticism.

Berman’s approach to his task seems to have three parts. (1) To credibly add to the evidence showing affinity between the Torah and the literature of the Late Bronze Age and the era of Moses (2) To show that the repetitions and contradictions found within the Torah demonstrate unity in a manner foreign to our modern conceptions, but more apparent when seen in the perspective of a range of ancient Near Eastern literary genres. such as the Code of Hammurabi and the Gilgamesh Epic (3) To then show that the Bible has a unique message that transcends its ancient context and is still worth reading today.

In order to move his theories from possible ideas to a probable hypothesis, he needs to write peer reviewed articles that suggest a greater affinity to the literature of the late-second millennium, based on credible parallels with ancient Near Eastern literature. He also must be on his guard not to slip into a Bible as literature mode, such as explaining narrative repetition but does not actually answer historical questions. The project wont refute academic trends, rather offer a credible apologetic. If he does enough drafts and listens carefully to his critics, then he may possibly create the major apologetic work, that barring new archeological finds, will last for decades. Berman’s current project has the potential to be the new Umberto Cassutto or Nahum Sarna.

Addressed above

.

Not really. If it was so easy to cite a side of the scholarly divide as matter of fact, things would be much easier.

To argue against consensus and civilization from the fringe, independant of any peer reviewed journals or established institutions may work for some, but it is far less of a proof than anything I've referenced.

You've referenced nothing except seminaries and libraries, as if that somehow points the reader in any direction for the direct facts of the discussion, and you cannot simply write off the "Fundy" and "Fringe" view from "civilization", no matter how much you want. What defines "civilization" here exactly? The secular scholarly view?

But I never said anything about authors intent.

Oh really? You said it was never intended to be history. Are you denying what you said earlier?

More accurately, I implied community cultic intent viz. a myth story.

Okay, and that's not anything to do with author's intent? I really don't see the separation of the concepts here.

How myth stories were used among ancient peoples is also available in your library;

Theories and ideas of such are available in the library, but perhaps you'd like to point to some actual books at the library that you'd like to reference to actually back your view. Again, you're acting as if these books know for a fact what they really meant as if they know the "psyche" of them.

I am too busy having a life to summarize it.

Well then you shouldn't be bothering making posts that you can't be bothered to back, as if "go to the library" somehow proves what the original "mythic cultures" intended view was.

No. Lol.

Quite.

I think you mean to say "respectful" not "respectable."

Perhaps, but I'd say writing fundamentalists off as "fundies" is not respectable on this forum, or respectful.

I type fundy because fundamentalist is too long to type.

Fundy. Fundamentalist. Takes me an extra .5 seconds about. Obviously too much work when you have so much more on the post to write I see.

Really. No disrespect meant.

I really don't believe that, especially in your previous posts on other subjects using the word, and especially in the way you use the word 'civilization" as if it excludes those of a "Fundamentalist" view. And besides, "Fundamentalists" aren't the only ones who have this "fringe" view, as a group. Perhaps you should have said "Literalists" instead. Does the Greek Orthodox church take the Catholic view that Genesis can be interpreted metaphorically? Do JW's and Mormons count as "Fundamentalists"? When did the term "Fundy" mean anyone who is a literalist by chance, it was originally a specific kind of movement.

Like Xty vs. Christianity in academic practice.

Not really the same. Especially in how the term is bandied about.

Or nazi vs. national socialist, or bolshy vs. bolshevikcommunard.

I've never heard a Bolshevik called a Bolshi, and I think the National Socialists had no problem with the term Nazi, but I would think very few Fundamentalists would appreciate being called a Fundy.

Call me a mod, a lib, a crit, whatever. Or suggest an abbreviation you prefer and consider more respectful.
But whether it's fundy or fundamentalist, neither is more respectable in civilized society.

No, it's a recommendation based on an assessment of facts as revealed in your many posts; do you deny that you represent a fringe position (vast minority, independent scholarship)?

My view is actually fringe TO the fundamentalists and conservative scholars, because I believe in the Pre-adamite race, which was NOT fringe at all in the 1700-1800s. Fringe to the secularists as well, but nonetheless, the definition of ad hominem is "against the man", all I did was ASK YOU TO BACK YOUR CLAIM and you make a PERSONAL COMMENT about what you consider my beliefs to be. In my view, that's a bit desparate to talk about the person and their views and how they compare for simply asking you to back your claim as you are obligated to.

[TheJackelantern]

But what kind of evidence do we have to show the Genesis account is incorrect exactly? You say it is "utterly debunked". Please, feel free to show how. If you want to use scientific proofs, link to the exact data for examination.

SO back your assertion or do as you are required to do and retract your claim if you cannot adequately show evidence for your claim. You said it was "never meant to be". Okay, so please prove the original intent of the author. Not just a theory by a modern concensus by modern scholars, but with actual "good evidence".

1. Someone should have told the writers of the bible about the value of scientific proofs and how to properly write the subject in a coherent manner.

2. The genesis account is more than likely taken from The Enuma Elish.. Especially when the GOD being worshiped is a mountain god to which has a lot to do with Mesopotamian GODs.. More specifically, a Volcano/Fire GOD.

3. Perhaps you can give us the original Creation story for us and outline it. Because as of right now, you are just appealing to ignorance.

4. You asked us to show how.. Do you believe the flood myth in Genesis? How about Light before the sun and stars were placed in to heavens? What story do you support btw?

5. Your argument rests with trying to argue the original intent of the Author. This to which is to ignore what the author actually wrote and why it's incoherent, and why you need to make this argument in the first place.


So I will ask you to point to us which creation story you are agreeing with.

[Shermana]

1. Someone should have told the writers of the bible about the value of scientific proofs and how to properly write the subject in a coherent manner.

Even Aristotle, the greatest "scientist" of his age, was a Creationist of sorts. And as for "scientific proofs", there's a world of stuff to be discussed on the science board on just how accurate the claims of Geologists and Astronomers are in their claims against the account, but that's for another thread, this is getting rather off topic.

2. The genesis account is more than likely taken from The Enuma Elish.. Especially when the GOD being worshiped is a mountain god to which has a lot to do with Mesopotamian GODs.. More specifically, a Volcano/Fire GOD.

I wait with baited breath to see if Slope will call your view "fringe".

3. Perhaps you can give us the original Creation story for us and outline it. Because as of right now, you are just appealing to ignorance.

By asking for proof of an assertion, I am appealing to ignorance? Fascinating.

4. You asked us to show how.. Do you believe the flood myth in Genesis? How about Light before the sun and stars were placed in to heavens? What story do you support btw?

Yes, I believe all that. But this is not the approprirate thread, that is better for the science board.

5. Your argument rests with trying to argue the original intent of the Author.

Of course it's too much to ask a simple request to back up an assertion when one claims to know that the original intent of the author was to not portray what they felt was a literal account, what argument am I presenting exactly and why isn't Slope the one presenting this argument? Are you even following the conversation?

This to which is to ignore what the author actually wrote and why it's incoherent, and why you need to make this argument in the first place.

Ummm, you are the one ignoring what I said and saying that I made any argument in the first place except to ask for a source for the claim of the argument that Slope claimed to KNOW what the author's original intent was, apparently, as the objective reader can see, I made an incoherent argument by merely asking for some backing to the same sort of argument I am being accused of making, though all I did was ask for a source. Lot of trouble getting that source I see. Why don't you explain what argument I'm making by asking for a source to the claim that the author's intent was to not portray his idea of a literal account. Let the reader note what a struggle it is to get a simple backing to a claim here and the kicking and clawing in the process.

So I will ask you to point to us which creation story you are agreeing with.

Why wouldn't you think that I'm agreeing with the literal account in the first place? Quite honestly, I question how well you're even tracking what I even said or asked.

[TheJackelantern]

Even Aristotle, the greatest "scientist" of his age, was a Creationist of sorts. And as for "scientific proofs", there's a world of stuff to be discussed on the science board on just how accurate the claims of Geologists and Astronomers are in their claims against the account, but that's for another thread, this is getting rather off topic.

Aristotle also didn't live in the 21st century.. Please provide a better response to number 1 that doesn't involve backpedaling or excuses that attempt to avoid the issue.

I wait with baited breath to see if Slope will call your view "fringe".

Unfortunately this fringe actually has overwhelming evidence.

By asking for proof of an assertion, I am appealing to ignorance? Fascinating.

This is not a proper response to point 3. Point 3 had nothing to do with asking proof of an assertion. It asks you to please point to the original Creation story, or in addition here, the story you agree with and follow.

Yes, I believe all that. But this is not the approprirate thread, that is better for the science board.

However, it's appropriate here since this is dealing with said account in the bible.. And it is quite easily debunked. Such accounts are considered Pratt (arguments debunked thousands of times). If you like, I can go over them for you.

Of course it's too much to ask a simple request to back up an assertion when one claims to know that the original intent of the author was to not portray what they felt was a literal account, what argument am I presenting exactly and why isn't Slope the one presenting this argument? Are you even following the conversation?

The problem is that you are making assertions based on assertions by an Author. See your response to point 4. Hence it only become literal when it suits your needs for debate, and then becomes a question of Authors intent when it suits your needs for debate. This to which is quite obvious in your method of debate here. And I am not addressing Slope here, I am addressing an argument you made.

Ummm, you are the one ignoring what I said and saying that I made any argument in the first place except to ask for a source for the claim of the argument that Slope claimed to KNOW what the author's original intent was, apparently, as the objective reader can see, I made an incoherent argument by merely asking for some backing to the same sort of argument I am being accused of making, though all I did was ask for a source. Lot of trouble getting that source I see. Why don't you explain what argument I'm making by asking for a source to the claim that the author's intent was to not portray his idea of a literal account. Let the reader note what a struggle it is to get a simple backing to a claim here and the kicking and clawing in the process.

And yet you seem content at cherry picking what you take literal and what you want to claim is a misunderstanding of the Author's intent. So my argument here deals with getting you to clarify what the Author's actual intent was and how that reflects what exactly was written without adding anything, or self-invention context. Slope can only go by what words are written, and in this case, what order they are written in.. The bible contradicting itself is a very big problem for your position btw, and it's not surprising to see apologetics in full swing here. And I did ask you for the source ect in point 3 to which you kindly ignored having to address.

Why wouldn't you think that I'm agreeing with the literal account in the first place? Quite honestly, I question how well you're even tracking what I even said or asked

I am asking if you do or don't for my own clarity of your position. And I am asking you to clarify it and outline it so it's actually addressable in a coherent manner.

[Shermana]

Aristotle also didn't live in the 21st century.. Please provide a better response to number 1 that doesn't involve backpedaling or excuses that attempt to avoid the issue.

The excuse here is you saying that somehow the 21st century disproves the idea of Creationism. A common excuse, and a total myth. I don't see ANYTHING that would make Leibniz, Aristotle, or Newton or anyone else have changed their minds. A terrible excuse at that. So if you don't like that answer, I'm sorry, but the response doesn't work.

Unfortunately this fringe actually has overwhelming evidence.

Right, and by my own logic, my particular fringe view has overwhelming evidence which shows that the DH is full of holes. I suppose everyone believes what they do because they believe in the evidence.

This is not a proper response to point 3.

Sure it is, point 3 is not a proper response to me merely asking for backing for a claim, which again, it appears to have struck a nerve to have the audacity to dare ask someone to actually back their claim as is required. How audaicious to simply ask for support for a claim!

Point 3 had nothing to do with asking proof of an assertion. It asks you to please point to the original Creation story, or in addition here, the story you agree with and follow.

I don't see why I should have to point to anything to merely ask for backing for a claim that says that the original authors didn't intend it literally. Especially when all the Midrash writers, OT and NT writers seemed to indicate that the Garden story involved actual people. Can you please point to the original source that says it was all intended as myth or can you honorably concede that you are blatantly defending unasserted claims because they mesh with what you want to believe?

However, it's appropriate here since this is dealing with said account in the bible..

More manuevering to get away from the fact that I merely asked for support for an assertion that someone KNEW as in KNEW for a fact what the original authors were intending to say, even though the later writers seemed to feel that these original authors were being literal in their minds.

And it is quite easily debunked.

I suppose it's "easily debunked" according to subjective logic and blind adherence to a largely secularly-biased and oft-changing "scientific" outlook. But in terms of Manuscript scholarship and study, it's only "easily debunked" by people who want to render the grammar of the story to indicate contradictions and such and ignore things like the once-common pre-adamite interpretation.

Such accounts are considered Pratt (arguments debunked thousands of times). If you like, I can go over them for you.

Start a new thread if you'd like.

The problem is that you are making assertions based on assertions by an Author.

The problem in asking for proof of someone's assertion is that I'm making an assertion by asking for proof of the assertion? Wow, this is like getting a cat to take a bath.

See your response to point 4.

Yes, let the reader see these responses and take note the scratching and clawing when it comes to simply do as required and provide sources for assertions of matter-of-fact.

Hence it only become literal when it suits your needs for debate,

No, it becomes "Literal" for me at any time any place. Nonetheless, this is all just smoke for avoiding a very simple request to discuss the actual facts.

and then becomes a question of Authors intent when it suits your needs for debate.

Huh? I'm not the one making claims about the author's intent and what wasn't,if I am making claims here, I'll say that the OT and NT writers and "Apocryphal" writers seemed to believe that the Garden and Abel and Adam were real people, so I will claim that it seems they didn't catch this memo that the original authors intended it to be totally mythical. But again, this is just smoke for avoiding the issue that unsupportable assertions have been made and perhaps I later made the claim that the DH rests its entire basis on what can be considered a faulty review of the actual text to suit their own needs.

This to which is quite obvious in your method of debate here.

And it seems the naysayer's method of debate is to utterly avoid a simple request to present the evidence for their assertions and to act as if there's no need to actually debate because it's already proven and the coutner view is disproven...as if that's the case. It seems some people think Debate boards are actually preaching boards, both secular and Atheist. I simply asked for proof for an assertion, and the resistance is heavy.

And I am not addressing Slope here, I am addressing an argument you made.

Please define in your own words what argument I made particularly that you are addressing. The argument that one should be ready to back their assertions?

[

And yet you seem content at cherry picking what you take literal and what you want to claim is a misunderstanding of the Author's intent.

Really? Where did I cherry pick? Be specific. All I did at first was ask Slope to back his claim about his OWN assertion of the author's intent, then I called a fundy and fringe for merely daring to ask. It seems your argument tactic here is: "Do not dare question anyone's assertion about the garden story". Do you think anyone reading cannot see through this?

So my argument here deals with getting you to clarify what the Author's actual intent was and how that reflects what exactly was written without adding anything, or self-invention context

.

Well, I base my own belief that the author was being honest about what he believed happened because the rest of the Biblical and ancient Midrashic and Apocryphal writers who mention details of it seemed to agree that it was a real place with real events, and that it also seems to match with numerous other stories of the time from other cultures. Those who say that the intent was purely metaphorical might just be making less supportable assertions that rely on modern "scholarly" opinion which is based on a possibly biased view in itself that discounts the contrary position. Regardless, we don't have a time machine, we can't tell what the author was thinking, we only have our opinions. But it seems that the "antis" are dead set in believing it wasn't an account and want to kick and scratch at any attempt for them to back their own claims of the account, or the "civilization" that they reference to as if only their view accounts for "civilization". A thin smoke cloud.

Slope can only go by what words are written, and in this case, what order they are written in..

And that somehow makes his assertion correct without needing any support to back it up? Interesting. Am I supposed to go by something different? Is it possible that both our views are supportable by interpretation of what is written? Or is my view simply wrong because I live in the 21st century as if somehow "science" has effectively disproven it? As if the opinion of literary critics and scholars is based on new evidence that disproves it? I suppose you'll say that the "library" is the only evidence one needs for their claims for your camp as well.

the bible contradicting itself is a very big problem for your position btw

,

And this assertion basically brushes aside what I said about misinterpretations of it contradicting, that's okay. You can brush aside the other interpretation that examines the pre-adamite theory and the use of "the land" instead of "land" to signify the garden as a separate place of creation if you'd like. No need to address the fact that there are other interpretations. Yours is the only one of course.

and it's not surprising to see apologetics in full swing here.

So basically, if I don't believe in the traditional Secularist interpretation of how it supposedly "contradicts", it becomes "Apologetics" as if "Apologetics" is a bad thing. And of course, you can just brush aside my pre-adamite and "the land" intepretation as "Apologetics" as if that somehow debunks it, thanks for showing how clearly your side regards the counter arguments.

And I did ask you for the source ect in point 3 to which you kindly ignored having to address.

What kind of source are you looking for exactly? You have kindly ignored the very fact that all I did was ask for evidence to back the claim that we KNOW that the authors didn't intend it literally. Trying to pass it off on to me?

I am asking if you do or don't for my own clarity of your position.

What does that have to do with asking for evidence to back the assertion that we KNOW what the authors intended to write? What does that have to do with the alternate interpretation of the garden event that doesn't involve any contradictions that views the creation of the Garden and the Prime Man as separate events? What does that have to do with the fact that the OT and NT and Apocrypha seem to regard the people of the garden as real and the events as real and that the evidence favors a traditional view that it was their version of history rather than myth-with-meaning?

And I am asking you to clarify it and outline it so it's actually addressable in a coherent manner.

Why should I have to Clarify and outline what I believe for simply asking for someone to back their claims and assertions? I appreciate you showing how difficult it can be to get the naysayers to back their own claims of course. So please tell me what you want me to clarify and outline specifically that is necessary for the question for one to back their claim that the original authors didn't intend it to be regarded as actual events and history.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 14:

Even Aristotle, the greatest "scientist" of his age, was a Creationist of sorts.
...

That you hadda use quotaters there indicates a non-standard use of the term, indicating Aristotle was perhaps not as even "scientisty" as you'd like.

As well, the most respected scientist in the land can be as "creationisty" as he wants, but if he wishes to propose it as a sound theory, he's got his work laid out for him.

[Shermana]

From Post 14:

Even Aristotle, the greatest "scientist" of his age, was a Creationist of sorts.
...

That you hadda use quotaters there indicates a non-standard use of the term, indicating Aristotle was perhaps not as even "scientisty" as you'd like.

As well, the most respected scientist in the land can be as "creationisty" as he wants, but if he wishes to propose it as a sound theory, he's got his work laid out for him.

Personally I don't even think modern "Scientists" are often that "scientisty" but are often biased and willing to push dubious data (as well as withhold undesirable data) to support their own desired conclusions, the concept of "Science" as some kind of objective method of scrutiny that has somehow discovered things that would make ancient people change their entire Cosmological outlook to me is demonstration of either extreme blind faith or unwillingness to examine the "truthiness" of what is actually available. I think Aristotle's opinions would not have been any different with all the "Science" that is available. But that's another story for another thread. For now, I just want evidence to back the assertion that we KNOW what the original authors were thinking and that it wasn't intended to be taken literally, that'd be great, it's been pretty tough trying to get that for some odd reason...

[TheJackelantern]

Personally I don't even think modern "Scientists" are often that "scientisty" but are often biased and willing to push dubious data to support their own desired conclusions, the concept of "Science" as some kind of objective method of scrutiny that has somehow discovered things that would make ancient people change their entire Cosmological outlook to me is demonstration of either extreme blind faith or unwillingness to examine the "truthiness" of what is actually available. I think Aristotle's opinions would not have been any different with all the "Science" that is available.

Then you better turn your computer off and stop using it since you think scientists are all magical conspirators! Seriously, this is like your setup to deny anything that debunks and contradicts your religious beliefs. FlatEarthers do the same thing btw. And Ancient people had a less than a 4th grade educational understanding of cosmology or anything dealing with cosmology. I can walk outside a look up and understand as much as they did without much effort. So of course your argument is going to plea for science being biased, you need it to be for a reason.. Basically this tells me you are actually not interested in any sort of honest discourse. Especially when you already know you will get owned in this debate on the subject. You aren't playing with just any Atheist here, you are also playing with a former Christian who knows a lot of science. So be careful of the battles you pick here.

[Shermana]

Then you better turn your computer off and stop using it since you think scientists are all magical conspirators!

Right, because I said ALL scientists are ALWAYS lying, and of course there's no difference between applied technology and scientific theory of course. And there's no such thing as dubious data either. Looks like you fall into my "blind faith" category. And I don't see why the conspirators would be "magical". I'm assuming you think a person is crazy for thinking flouridation of water is a bad thing while we're at it. I'm assuming you also think there's no conspiracies especially in the health industry and that Cancer researchers are constantly looking for the cure or that medicine researchers have never downplayed or covered up bad side effects until the product had made a decent product and they had no choice but to reveal it and stuff like that.

Seriously, this is like your setup to deny anything that debunks and contradicts your religious beliefs.

I think I specifically said go ahead and make a thread to discuss the raw science and the actual data which may contradict anything I said. Are you saying that it's wrong to ever assert that there's bad data in science? I meet plenty of people like that, it's quite strange, and funny at the same time, how much trust people place in the "science" whatever "science" actually means of course.

FlatEarthers do the same thing btw.

Let the reader note, if I so much as dare to question the practices and assume that there may be some bias and fraud in the scientific community, I can be compared to a flat-earther.

And Ancient people had a less than a 4th grade educational understanding of cosmology or anything dealing with cosmology.

Cosmologists today are still scrambling to come up with new models to replace what was commonly accepted in the 1920s, and even today, things like Gravity are even being questioned. So I'm assuming then you have a serious problem with people questioning the motives and methods of most of the modern "scientific" community as a whole, with your use of the computer as the sole example. The computer I wouldn't even say is so much "science" as it is the next-stage development of old-1930s/40s technology. "Computer science" is its own field. Technological innovations are one thing, scientific theories are another. I'm assuming you learned this in school, right?

I can walk outside a look up and understand as much as they did without much effort.

Not exactly, they had very intricate calendars and for what they could actually see, some decent astronomical data that most laymen wouldn't be able to piece together. People tend to write off the ancients as if they knew nothing, this demonstrates an ironic conclusion.

So of course your argument is going to plea for science being biased, you need it to be for a reason..

So you're going to say that science is unbiased completely as a whole and never relies on dubious or misleading data to support their own conclusions, thank you. Let the reader note.

Basically this tells me you are actually not interested in any sort of honest discourse.

So because I don't put my complete blind faith in science, that means I'm not interested in any sort of honest discourse. Oh the irony.

Especially when you already know you will get owned in this debate on the subject.

This is something I don't know, especially when I offered you to make a new thread on the subject.

You aren't playing with just any Atheist here, you are also playing with a former Christian who knows a lot of science. So be careful of the battles you pick here.

So let's see that new thread. Judging by your complete dismissal of the idea that there is a lot of fraud and dubious data pushed around in the community, I question your claim about knowing a "Lot about science". I'm assuming you're a global warming believer and that you believe aspartame is good for you? If we're going to get technical though, I may want to wait til morning after I finish the other half of my sleep.