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.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 18:

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...

I'm aware of this malady in many a theist.

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...

I think this is where your understanding of science fails. Ancient folks, what with being dead and all, are hardly in a position to change their minds.

to me is demonstration of either extreme blind faith or unwillingness to examine the "truthiness" of what is actually available.

Projection.

I think Aristotle's opinions would not have been any different with all the "Science" that is available.

We'll never know now, will we?

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.

I can sure dig that. Coming from the Bible Belt, a literalist take on biblical claims is about all I've known.

That said, I've seen some compelling arguments on this site alone that lead me to at least consider non-literalist takes to be, if not valid, well, compelling.

[TheJackelantern]

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.

E=MC^2, Or modern information science and theory that deals with complex adaptive systems and chaotic self-organizing systems. Things like how we know that consciousness can't exist without cause would nullify the GOD debate entirely.

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.

Really? Like attaching a persona to a Volcano and calling it GOD? :

ref:Should%20it%20even%20be%20called%20a%20sacrifice?

And yes, the evidence is important, and actual evidence has actual value vs someone whom has none at all.. But don't you worry, I have more than 40 pages worth of details on the subject outlined if you really want to play this game.

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!

This had nothing to do with point number 3.. Please try again.

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?

It doesn't surprise me that you would think you don't have to while demanding others to.. How hypocritical of you, and how avoiding the issue can you possibly get? And yes, genetics vs lineage really kills your argument entirely. And giving your response, you are admitting to cherry picking what you will take literally and what you won't. And seemed to indicate really means seemed to contradict themselves.. And the Garden stories don't match the GOD claim of making Dirt people when people are not made of dirt / dust. Care to get a biochemistry lesson?

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.

Eh? That was a reply to your statement that you believe in the flood myth ect. So now none of it is literal? Heh, may as well state the whole bible as non-literal and toss it. Seems you are looking for a circular argument here that goes nowhere.

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.

Yes because illogical and irrational blind self-refuting beliefs are so much more in line with reality.. /sarcasm .. And yes, secular is the best system there is because it's not close minded.. And we don't need to rely on contradictions in the bible to disprove it.. Genetics does that just fine, and understanding race in terms of genetics also does that just fine. And you are trying to pull the common argument that if all these people believed it, it must have been true! Umm no, Volcanoes are not GOD's, nor are people dust people.

Start a new thread if you'd like.

Why?

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.

Or a dog chasing it's own tail.. spinning in circles is fun eh?

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.

He sourced the bibles contradiction and you are the one complaining without providing viable evidence as a counter to the argument. So far all we really got was circular apologetics. Problems in the bible is not his problem, it's yours.

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.

Saying no and then stating by example of exactly what I said is a pretty bad argument to make.

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.

How are you not making a claim to the Authors intent when you sit here claiming to believe it? Do you believe Adam and Abel were real dust people? And again, which creation story are you going with here? OT , NT? And which version of the bible?

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.

You haven't proven anything here, and that is the problem. You can't even prove to us what the supposed original intent was simply because you can only go by what is actually written.

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?

Your disagreement on the order or creation.. So I am asking you to clarify so we understand your position and your view on why you think the actual intentions were of these Authors. And you do understand that bot stories get the order wrong right? I only need an example of a supernova to disprove both entirely.

Really? Where did I cherry pick? Be specific.

You believe in the flood myth and yet you cherry pick non-literal interpretation of Genesis and it's contradiction between the OT and the NT.

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?

And I told you he can only go by what is written, and that the authors should have had the divine ability to actually convey their intentions coherently.. Clearly that was skipped here eh?

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.

So the contradictions are an error? I thought this was a divinely written, and the word of GOD? .. And of course it was a real place, but that doesn't make everything in the book magically true or even possible. Embellished events, misunderstanding that a Volcano isn't a GOD might be a good place to start on some of those "stories" . And no, it doesn't seem to match other cultures.. There are over 500 flood myths, and zero geological evidence to support they all happened at the same time, or ever occurred on a global scale. Perhaps you can be more specific..

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.

Actually I have stated that many things in the bible actually occurred with the exception that a GOD doesn't exist, and that many of the stories are embellished and even made up in many cases. It's important to note that the Bible is not a history book, or science book..

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?

Yes science has largely disproved many things in the bible. It also has proven some things in the bible to. Genesis unfortunately, as written, is disproved entirely.

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.

This is subjective and depends on what exactly you want me to disprove.

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.

Pre=adamite believes humans existed before the first supposed humans.. Which do you believe? Because I know where I will go with this in terms of science.

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.

So you believe humans existed before the biblical first humans?

What kind of source are you looking for exactly?

Your interpretation and sources of course.

[otseng]

But in fairness, you may be uncomprehending or in denial.

Moderator Warning

There is no need to interject personal comments of this sort.

I type fundy because fundamentalist is too long to type.

I am not convinced of this. But even if true, it is perceived by others to be a pejorative label. So, please take the time to type out fundamentalist instead.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[otseng]

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".

Moderator Comment

Shermana is correct. Telling someone to "go to the library" is not providing evidence.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[Shermana]

I'm aware of this malady in many a theist.

Let the reader note, if a Theist or anyone doesn't blindly accept everything the scientific community does or has any slight suspicion of the possibility of fraud and agenda seeking, it's a "malady". Take note.

I think this is where your understanding of science fails. Ancient folks, what with being dead and all, are hardly in a position to change their minds.

I think this is where YOUR understanding of "science" fails, as well, as well as the concept of what "science" today has to offer that anyone who made Theological arguments in the past or present would think differently about. Let the reader note, there is no actual attempt to explain why my understanding of "science" fails. An all too common type of ad hominem: If you don't think that "science" in the "21st century" has somehow disproven what ancient people believe, you have a "Flawed understanding of science". More smoke screens.

Projection.

Of what exactly?

We'll never know now, will we?

Well then, one shouldn't say use the "21st century" as an excuse to say he was wrong, now should they?

I can sure dig that. Coming from the Bible Belt, a literalist take on biblical claims is about all I've known.

Okay, but nonetheless, the literalist perspective is not as easily disproven as the naysayers love to say it is, unless they rely on blind faith in the totality of the "scientific community", and not just that, but mainly secondary sources that don't get into the actual data itself but just the so-called "results". That's my contention, in that there may be something in the mysterious and hidden raw data which proves something fudged or fishy going on in the details of these "scientists" who are often finding their own findings disproven later. Not even Astronomy and Cosmology is safe from erroroneous conclusions being pushed, let alone Geology.

That said, I've seen some compelling arguments on this site alone that lead me to at least consider non-literalist takes to be, if not valid, well, compelling.

That's perfectly fine, and I have no problem with anyone who thinks that, as long as they don't go trying to say that the Theistic view is something defeated with appeals to "science" as if the game has been done, set and match.

[TheJackelantern]

I think this is where YOUR understanding of "science" fails, as well, as well as the concept of what "science" today has to offer that anyone who made Theological arguments in the past or present would think differently about. Let the reader note, there is no actual attempt to explain why my understanding of "science" fails. An all too common type of ad hominem: If you don't think that "science" in the "21st century" has somehow disproven what ancient people believe, you have a "Flawed understanding of science". More smoke screens.

It's not an ad hominem to state that they are not in a position to change their minds because they are dead. And if you believe in the flood myth and creation story, your science technically does fail. It doesn't even fall in the realm of the scientific method.

Of what exactly?

It's obvious is it not?

Well then, one shouldn't say use the "21st century" as an excuse to say he was wrong, now should they?

Newton was wrong about space.. So were many of Darwin's arguments to which were proven wrong by modern science. You are basing your entire argument on people whom had far less information and knowledge on such subjects. And clearly that is a problem with your argument. Pointing out the 21st century is to establish the age of reason from the biblical era where people actually believed Volcanoes and such were GODs.

Okay, but nonetheless, the literalist perspective is not as easily disproven as the naysayers love to say it is, unless they rely on blind faith in the totality of the "scientific community", and not just that, but mainly secondary sources that don't get into the actual data itself but just the so-called "results". That's my contention, in that there may be something in the mysterious and hidden raw data which proves something fudged or fishy going on in the details of these "scientists" who are often finding their own findings disproven later. Not even Astronomy and Cosmology is safe from erroroneous conclusions being pushed, let alone Geology.

Care to challenge me on that? After this I don't think you should use a computer anymore because it's literally arguing against you.

That's perfectly fine, and I have no problem with anyone who thinks that, as long as they don't go trying to say that the Theistic view is something defeated with appeals to "science" as if the game has been done, set and match.

I see, and so you are ok with freethinking as long as it doesn't contradict your beliefs entirely? Have to love the fact that such religious beliefs need a conspiracy theory to hold themselves up.. Yep, the Earth is Flat according to your bible, and many Christians believe it's flat, and that all science is a conspiracy and Round Earth propaganda to fool you!.. Thus it's no surprise you try to make science out to be a logical fallacy or an appeal. That must have taken some serious mental gymnastics, and really shows you have no intention of an honest debate here. Hence, you are dismissed.

[Shermana]

E=MC^2, Or modern information science and theory that deals with complex adaptive systems and chaotic self-organizing systems. Things like how we know that consciousness can't exist without cause would nullify the GOD debate entirely.

Why don't you start a new thread on why exactly this would nullify the G-d debate entirely. This is kinda what I saying to Joey there, these kinds of statements are flat out assertions. And about "Chaotic slef organizing" systems, are you referring to Quantum theories? If anything I say that those are PROOF of an Unmoved Mover at work. You have your right to your opinion, but assertions as matter of fact like "conciousness can't exist without cause" doesn't nullify the G-d debate entirely. Start a new thread on that issue if you think that's so true. Especially when Theists believe that G-d is the "Prime Cause", the "Causeless Cause" even. Aristotle thought similarly. I really don't believe anything we know today would have changed his mind, even if he's dead and we have no way of proving, I don't see what today's conclusions say differently about what he said.

Really? Like attaching a persona to a Volcano and calling it GOD? :

You're welcome to believe in this radical fringe theory of what you consider there is "overwhelming evidence", good luck trying to convince anyone that this is the case here.

And yes, the evidence is important, and actual evidence has actual value vs someone whom has none at all.. But don't you worry, I have more than 40 pages worth of details on the subject outlined if you really want to play this game.

So let's play that game, start a new thread on the subject, this is another example of what I'm talking about, acting as if you only have to say "Haha I have SO much evidence, YOU LOSE!" to make your case. If you have an assertion, back it, or retract it. So back it.

This had nothing to do with point number 3.. Please try again.

Let the reader note, point 3 was an attempt for me to prove the impossible when all I did was ask for a source to an assertion that we know for a fact what the ancients thought and that it wasn't meant to be literal. How am I supposed to present what the original story of Creation was when all we have is copies of manuscripts? How is anyone supposed to know like those who ASSERT that "we know" what the ancient authors originally knew? Is this just more attempt to dodge the attempt to back the original claim of which I'm asking for sources for? Yes.


[

It doesn't surprise me that you would think you don't have to while demanding others to..

It doesn't surprise me that you think the other person doesn't have to get sources for their own assertion and that you try to shift the burden of proof.

How hypocritical of you, and how avoiding the issue can you possibly get?

Whoa. Irony overwhelming. Smoke screen. I merely asked for the original person to present a source for their assertion, then I am asked for my own beliefs and told I'm hypocritical because I don't feel the need to completely outline my own beliefs, as if I'm the one who originally made the assertion that we KNOW what the ancients believed and that it wasn't meant to be literal. Meanwhile, I've demonstrated that the other biblical and apocryphal and midrashic authors did NOT have this view, and they all viewed it as literal. Let the reader note. Is Jackylantern being deliberately dishonest and trying to shake the trail off here? I think so.

And yes, genetics vs lineage really kills your argument entirely.

Huh? How? Explain in detail.

And giving your response, you are admitting to cherry picking what you will take literally and what you won't.

Oh really? I asked you specifically how I was cherry picking. Looks like you're the one avoiding the specifics. So please explain where I am literal in one place and metaphorical in another, in detail. Back your assertions. Unless of course you also feel you don't need to back your assertions.

And seemed to indicate really means seemed to contradict themselves..

Huh? This makes no sense. I demonstrated how one can interpret it to get what was mainstream in the 1700-1800s, which is the Pre-adamite theory and the separate garden creation which therefore does not contradict.

And the Garden stories don't match the GOD claim of making Dirt people when people are not made of dirt / dust. Care to get a biochemistry lesson?

Human beings have a very similar composition to the Earth, especially our water composition, and carbon, and gold, and platinum, and iron, and magnesium, etc. But sure, feel free to make another thread about it. I was originally just asking for backing to an assertion about what the original authors intended, not a defense of Genesis altogether which I saw this going a mile away. Why back one's assertions when we can play merry-go-round about the correctness of Genesis, what a nice diversion from having to actually back one's claims.

Eh? That was a reply to your statement that you believe in the flood myth ect. So now none of it is literal?

Wow. Please explain in detail how you get that I said none of it is literal, this is just odd.

Heh, may as well state the whole bible as non-literal and toss it. Seems you are looking for a circular argument here that goes nowhere.

Are you deliberately setting up a straw man or do you have difficulties comprehending what I said? I never said the Bible is non-literal, where did you get that from? Please quote with an underline where you get that I said it's non-literal from that quote, please. It's difficult to debate with someone who is making claims about what you said that you didn't really say, especially with people who defend not having to actually back their assertions about the intention of the original author.

Yes because illogical and irrational blind self-refuting beliefs are so much more in line with reality.. /sarcasm ..

You don't get to write off a Literalist interpretation as "irrational and illogical and blind-self-refuting", if you don't want to actually debate with Literalists and just want to throw spit-wads, find another forum. Otherwise, try directly debating what I'm actually saying.

And yes, secular is the best system there is because it's not close minded..

Oh really? You think secularists are not close-minded? Let the reader note.

And we don't need to rely on contradictions in the bible to disprove it..

Again, avoiding my point that the interpretation doesn't have to be contradicting when you take proper grammar like use of the article for "Ha-eretz" to indicate the garden instead of the Earth itself and to get the mainstream-in-the-1700/1800s pre-adamite view. I wonder why that is.

Genetics does that just fine, and understanding race in terms of genetics also does that just fine.

Feel free to make a new thread demonstrating how.

And you are trying to pull the common argument that if all these people believed it, it must have been true!

Actually, that's what Slopeshoulder was trying to pull with his "civilization" comments and appealing to authority for the DH and saying that the literalist perspective does "violence" to scripture. I am merely saying that my pre-adamite interpretation and view is not new or was uncommon until the religious revival movements when it faded out...temporarily.

Umm no, Volcanoes are not GOD's, nor are people dust people.

Good luck trying to gain credibility on this board with your Volcano-God theory, as well as with your attempt to straw man other people's arguments.

Why?

So that's a refusal then. Maybe because this whole attempt to attack the basis of Genesis is a tangent and big distraction from the OP and my request for backing to the claim that we KNOW what the original authors intended and that it wasn't intended to be literal?

Or a dog chasing it's own tail.. spinning in circles is fun eh?

So let the reader note, Jackyl believes its okay to make assertions without evidence.

He sourced the bibles contradiction and you are the one complaining without providing viable evidence as a counter to the argument.

What evidence do you need to demonstrate that there is not a contradiction when you account for the article in "ha-eretz" to mean the garden, and that there was a race of Pre-adamite men in this view?

So far all we really got was circular apologetics. Problems in the bible is not his problem, it's yours.

I think you're really trying to just avoid the fact that I said one can interpret it without running into contradictions and you are just insisting that it does in fact contradict as if any attempt to explain otherwise can be written off as "circular apologetics". This is a debate board, you don't get to ignore other peoples' arguments.

Saying no and then stating by example of exactly what I said is a pretty bad argument to make.

Huh? I really have no idea how this is a cogent response here. What did I do that's a bad argument? I smell yet another straw man.

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

How are you not making a claim to the Authors intent when you sit here claiming to believe it?

Ah, we now see the straw man burning itself down. I merely claimed to believe in the Literalist interpretation, and demonstrated that all of the Midrash and Apocryphal and Biblical authors seemed to as well, without much indication of a metaphorical understanding. Meanwhile, I did not assert that this was the case, I merely said what I believe, and backed my case with historical example of how it was interpreted.

Do you believe Adam and Abel were real dust people? And again, which creation story are you going with here? OT , NT? And which version of the bible?

Yes I believe they were real people, the only assertion I'm making is that I believe they were real. I am not asserting that we KNOW for a 100% fact that the author intended them to be fictional. The authors of the NT and Apocryphal and Midrashic writings all seemed to refer to Abel as a real person. Paul referred to the events in the Garden as real events, without getting into any reason to think it was just metaphorical. I don't have a version of the Bible, I study manuscripts and their differences. I go by both Creation accounts, first the creation of the Earth as a whole, then the creation of the Garden and the Prime Man Adam, "The man" who was separate from the mankind created in 1:26.

You haven't proven anything here,

I've proven that the view that Genesis is purely metaphorical is a very recent idea, and that the ancient authors we have did not see it this way, otherwise, I've proven that it seems the "antis" feel no need to back their assertions and that they can appeal to the so-called "scholarly concensus" on the DH as if that somehow proves the original intent of the author.

and that is the problem. You can't even prove to us what the supposed original intent was simply because you can only go by what is actually written.

I don't need to prove anything, all I did was say what I believe in, I didn't make an assertion that the original authors intended to be metaphorical, you seem to have no problem with someone else making assertions that back what you believe in not presenting evidence. Meanwhile, the only assertion I made is what I believe in, with evidence to demonstrate that this same belief was shared by pretty much all the early writers we have available, where the counter view, simply doesn't and seems to be a modern interpretation. Why do I have to prove the contrary when I merely ask for someone to back their own assertion with evidence? More smoke screening and straw manning on your part below:

Your disagreement on the order or creation..

I have no disagreement on the order of creation, I have disagreement on the perspective that it contradicts itself and that the "mankind" created in Genesis 1:26 is the same "man" as in Genesis 2, and the same "Land" is the same "The land" (used for regional specifics) in Genesis 2. I think my case is well demonstrated, and like I said, this view is not new, it may be fringe today, but it sure wasn't 200 years ago, it just kind of fell out of favor after the DH and the religious revivals took it to the 2 camps we have today, it is still held by a few nonetheless and I see it getting more popular as an interpretation as the conservative grip loosens.

So I am asking you to clarify so we understand your position and your view on why you think the actual intentions were of these Authors.

You are attempting to shift the burden of proof. Do you deny that Slope made an assertion that we know that the authors didn't intend it as literally? If not, then you shouldn't deny that he should present a source to back his claim. I am not asserting that we know anything about them, I'm not asserting that HUMANS wrote it even, it could have been magical chimpanzees for all we know. Or space aliens. Or a volcanic fire elemental. The point being, I merely claimed what I believe, and can demonstrate that this belief was shared by virtually all early writers on the subject, and that the idea that it was intended to be metaphorical is a modern idea.

And you do understand that bot stories get the order wrong right? I only need an example of a supernova to disprove both entirely.

Supernovas are another story completely, we can start a new thread on that (unless of course you also feel that you don't need to actually back your assertions), I have debated on astronomy and cosmology before, Supernovas in no way disprove the order of Creation, in fact, we can only see a few thousand of them when we should see millions with what technology we have, that should raise a red flag to any objective reader. I also have many a few threads on how a Sun before an Ozone layer would have ultimately destroyed/irradiated all plant growth and cyanobacteria, not even the strongest Algae would likely be able to survive an Ozoneless world.

You believe in the flood myth and yet you cherry pick non-literal interpretation of Genesis and it's contradiction between the OT and the NT.

Whoa there, your straw men become even more shoddy. I never said anything about believing in a non-literal interpretation, not once, or said that it's a contradiction in the OT or NT. If you're going to make false statements about what I said, (and let the reader note, you have avoided specifically saying what I said to indicate this), it's hard to debate if you're only going to plant straw men.

And I told you he can only go by what is written, and that the authors should have had the divine ability to actually convey their intentions coherently.. Clearly that was skipped here eh?

Ummm no, if we go by what was written, we can't tell what the author's intention was. What we can tell is what the ancients believed about it. And I believe what the ancients believed about it. It's that simple. If you're trying to defend Slope's right to make assertions without backing them, I suggest another board where you're allowed to do that.

So the contradictions are an error?

Ummm, can you please explain how I indicated that in the quote? Again, my interpretation involves no contradictions whatsoever. I hope I don't need to repeat this yet again.

I thought this was a divinely written, and the word of GOD?

..

I have never said that the current form is Divinely written, even if I may believe it, I also go by books like Jubilees (though I think it has interpolations like many others) and Pseudo-Philo and I think the current form of Genesis may be an abridged edited version of what could have been a Divinely inspired/written original, nonetheless, the way I interpret what we have, has no contradictions.

And of course it was a real place, but that doesn't make everything in the book magically true or even possible.

Now you're off making tangents and trying to avoid the original issue?

Embellished events, misunderstanding that a Volcano isn't a GOD might be a good place to start on some of those "stories"

.

Like I said, good luck building a credible reputation here on your Volcano-God assertions. Why don't you start a new thread on why you believe the OT G-d was a volcano, I found your last attempt by saying the letter Shin represents Fire and such to be less than compelling.

And no, it doesn't seem to match other cultures.. There are over 500 flood myths, and zero geological evidence to support they all happened at the same time, or ever occurred on a global scale. Perhaps you can be more specific..

Many of these flood myths are directly similar. The Chaldean myth has 'Noa" being a giant for one thing. The fact that there are over 500 flood myths should give some kind of indication of something, as I brought up in another thread (of which I was ironically challenged on such because I used Frazer and others as "secondary sources").

Actually I have stated that many things in the bible actually occurred with the exception that a GOD doesn't exist, and that many of the stories are embellished and even made up in many cases. It's important to note that the Bible is not a history book, or science book..

That has nothing to do with the assertion that the original author didn't intend it to be history.

Yes science has largely disproved many things in the bible.

No it hasn't, and I am willing to discuss the details and the problems with the various issues, and if you insist on blindly believing whatever "results" are given without examining the raw data itself, we're gonna have a problem.

It also has proven some things in the bible to. Genesis unfortunately, as written, is disproved entirely.

Not really. If anything, it proves Genesis. Many like to avoid the fact when I bring it up, or use attempts to say that Extremeophiles could produce the Ozone layer or something. Nonetheless, until proven otherwise, the Sun would simply irradiate all living things without an ozone layer in place beforehand. If you want to discuss how science has disproven Genesis 1 and 2, start a new thread. Otherwise, this is a common assertion that is based on even more blind faith and wishful thinking than any Literalists' perspective.

This is subjective and depends on what exactly you want me to disprove.

What's so subjective about it? Either we have solid evidence on what the original author intended and that it's by multiple authors, or we don't. I don't deny the Deuteronomist readiction theory, but I definitely think the P and E sources are made up by those who don't understand simple history and language issues like the use of the word "Elohim" and Canaanite culture. And the pre-adamite interpretation of Genesis 1:26.

Pre=adamite believes humans existed before the first supposed humans..

Yes, but that's a literal perspective, the "first supposed" humans is a more recent post 1700/1800s view of Adam and Eve, before then, the "first supposed humans" were the Pre-adamites, and then Adam was like a "Special Man", selected for the special garden, a more "godlike" man so to speak. Also, go to Askmoses and they will tell you that Lilith was Adam's first wife. There goes the "Supposed first human" concept of Eve. So try not to compare modern 'Christian" intepretation as if that's the defacto only way of interpreting it literally.

Which do you believe? Because I know where I will go with this in terms of science.

I believe in the Pre-adamite view. I know where you'll go with this in terms of science, the same place you went with every other assertion you made.

So you believe humans existed before the biblical first humans?

The first biblical humans were the Pre-adamites. Adam was not the first biblical human. Eve was not the first biblical woman. Go to askmoses and ask them who Lilith was, you will see there are many views on who the first man and woman was.

Your interpretation and sources of course.

Well I've given it, but I still don't understand what kind of sources you're looking for outside of the Bible, please explain in detail what sources I'd need for how I am interpreting the grammar and the text. Do you want links to the 1700s/1800s view of the Pre-adamites?

[TheJackelantern]

Why don't you start a new thread on why exactly this would nullify the G-d debate entirely. This is kinda what I saying to Joey there, these kinds of statements are flat out assertions. And about "Chaotic slef organizing" systems, are you referring to Quantum theories?

Snowflakes

If anything I say that those are PROOF of an Unmoved Mover at work

.

Coherency please.

You have your right to your opinion, but assertions as matter of fact like "conciousness can't exist without cause" doesn't nullify the G-d debate entirely.

Actually it does.

Start a new thread on that issue if you think that's so true.

I've already posted on it in the science forums

Especially when Theists believe that G-d is the "Prime Cause", the "Causeless Cause" even.

So your GOD doesn't need existence, or the rules of existence in order to exist? And is existence itself not the Prime Cause? Are you a Pantheist or a Christian? And how do you design and create existence and it's rules so yourself can exist?

Aristotle thought similarly. I really don't believe anything we know today would have changed his mind, even if he's dead and we have no way of proving, I don't see what today's conclusions say differently about what he said.

What you think is irrelevant...

Let the reader note, point 3 was an attempt for me to prove the impossible when all I did was ask for a source to an assertion that we know for a fact what the ancients thought and that it wasn't meant to be literal.

Still has nothing to do with point 3..

How am I supposed to present what the original story of Creation was when all we have is copies of manuscripts?

So you have nothing tangible to base your belief on? Basically your creation story is what-ever you want it to be as you see fit. I can see the goal post on wheels already.

It doesn't surprise me that you think the other person doesn't have to get sources for their own assertion and that you try to shift the burden of proof.

I didn't address him, I addressed you, and what your supposed "proof" is on the subject.

I merely asked for the original person to present a source for their assertion, then I am asked for my own beliefs and told I'm hypocritical because I don't feel the need to completely outline my own beliefs,

Your point? If you are not going to outline your beliefs, to which has a lot to do with your rejection of the premise of this article, you are then engaging in dishonest discourse.

Huh? How? Explain in detail.

You do know what the human Genome is right? Or the concept of passing on your genes is right? We can track that btw... And just a quick example:

http://www.hindu.com/seta/2010/11/18/st ... 061200.htm

This is the same process we use to determine who the father is of a child, or if you are related to x-person.

So please explain where I am literal in one place and metaphorical in another, in detail. Back your assertions.

You take part of genesis (the flood) and consider it literal, and then you make an argument about genesis being non-literal.. That is cherry picking.

Human beings have a very similar composition to the Earth, especially our water composition, and carbon, and gold, and platinum, and iron, and magnesium, etc.

You seem a bit ignorant on the subject. And using the term "Earth" is not the correct term unless it's in relation to just dust or dirt.. The term "Earth" didn't even exist then, and nor did the term "Planet". The word they specifically used was:

The relevant biblical passage is Genesis 2:7, which reads:

hmfdf)jhf Nmi rpf(f Mdf)fhf t)e Myhilo)v hwfhy: rceyyiwa

v'yyitzer YHWH 'Elohim 'et ha'adam 'aphar min ha'adamah

And that translates to:

"The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground."

The term "Dust" is specifically used in the bible, or "dirt".. And the human body is 75% water molecules and mostly oxygen by mass even though the carbon atom allows to form long molecular chains... And all of this is electromagnetic phenomenon. Hence, we aren't dirt people!.. Water people would have been more accurate to say than dirt people if you still wanted to generally be wrong. There is a reason why the bible doesn't discuss biochemistry, and it's because the people of that era were completely ignorant of it. They made an observation that if you bury someone, or burn them, they appear to just become dust... Hence they believed they were dust people. So it's not a surprise to see this deposited in the mouth of a supposed GOD.. You can't get any worse of a gaffe than that from a supposed deity.

Are you deliberately setting up a straw man or do you have difficulties comprehending what I said?

Are you the one not claiming the Authors intent was "Metaphorical" ?

Oh really? You think secularists are no ... der note.

You do understand what a secular system is right? For example, science accepts all arguments provided they can empirically support them. Hence I am open to being disproved provided the evidence disproves my position. This however does not work in such things as religion. Hence your need to hold on to a science conspiracy theory, or deny anything that doesn't mold into your religious beliefs regardless of the validity of them.

Again, avoiding my point that the interpretation doesn't have to be contradicting when you take proper grammar like use of the article for "Ha-eretz" to indicate the garden instead of the Earth itself and to get the mainstream-in-the-1700/1800s pre-adamite view. I wonder why that is.

Could you please outline where in the bible it makes that argument? Because from what I can tell, you are just admitting self-inventing context that does not exist in the bible even if you think the bible has been edited numerously in the past. If you ask me, it's that way because nobody had a coherent creations story..

The most serious early challenge to biblical Adamism came from the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate who, upon his rejection of Christianity and his conversion to Theurgy, a late form of Neoplatonism, accepted the idea that many pairs of original people had been created, a belief termed Coadamism or multiple-adamism (see polygenism). Genesis 1:27-28 might allow for co-creation of multiple pairs, if the word "them" were construed accordingly: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it;..." In addition, if a framework of strictly sequential chronology were adopted in interpreting the order of these texts from the ancient Middle East, it might be argued that Adam, and therefore Eve, are created a little later than the humans created in Genesis 1:27-28. On the other hand, Eve is called "the mother of all living" in Genesis 3:20.

Seems you have issues to deal with.. So perhaps you can outline for us Genesis and give everyone here a coherent understanding of it..

Maybe because this whole attempt to attack the basis of Genesis is a tangent

There is nothing to address or attack when you refuse to outline it. Telling people they are going on a tangent when you can't even seem to grasp and convey your own version of Genesis, it becomes a dead argument.

So let the reader note, Jackyl believes its okay to make assertions without evidence

Actually it's quite the contrary.

What evidence do you need to demonstrate that there is not a contradiction when you account for the article in "ha-eretz" to mean the garden, and that there was a race of Pre-adamite men in this view?

Because the bible itself makes no such statement and neither does such things as the ELBA.. It appears to be completely opinionated.. But hey, science states that Pre-damite would be correct all the way back to light itself and the fracturing of symmetry from which one force became four.. E=Me ..

I think you're really trying to just avoid the fact that I said one can interpret it without running into contradictions

Yep, this requires self-inventing context.

I go by both Creation accounts, first the creation of the Earth as a whole, then the creation of the Garden and the Prime Man Adam, "The man" who was separate from the mankind created in 1:26.

So you believe Earth was Created first, then the Garden, then Man, and.... keep going.. I will wait for you to finish and verify you order of events before I make a response.

[Shermana]

Snowflakes

At this point I think you're not even trying.

Coherency please.

Why is it not coherent?

Actually it does.

Care to back your assertion?

I've already posted on it in the science forums

Okay, I'll take a look.

So your GOD doesn't need existence

,

You have a habit of straw manning and extracting things that a person doesn't say from what they say I must say.

or the rules of existence in order to exist?

What are these "rules"? Who made these "rules"? The idea of the Creator not needing Creation doesn't violate any kind of rule. Where does matter come from? Where does Free energy come from? Those break the rules by your own logic, and I can back that assertion by a simple question: What caused free matter to be?

And is existence itself not the Prime Cause?

Yes.

Are you a Pantheist or a Christian?

I'm a Messianic Jew, however a semi-Panentheist. "The universe cannot contain you".

And how do you design and create existence and it's rules so yourself can exist?

The idea of G-d always existing is also shared by Pantheist religions. But can you explain how Free matter and free energy came to be? If not, I suggest you stop and think about that.

What you think is irrelevant...

Is that your way of brushing off what I said?

Still has nothing to do with point 3..

Keep repeating yourself there.

So you have nothing tangible to base your belief on?

I have the Creation story in Genesis, what more are you looking for? I'm not the one making assertions about what the authors' original intent was, I'm just saying what I believe about it with the use of "I believe". You and Slope seem to want to say "it is" without the "I believe" part...

Basically your creation story is what-ever you want it to be as you see fit.

Not really, I use the Creation account in Genesis in the Hebrew. Where did I indicate differently?

I can see the goal post on wheels already.

What a coincidence, so do I, except I'm not the one who put the wheels on. I was originally just asking for backing to an assertion that we know what the authors were thinking and that it wasn't intended to be taken literally, then the goal posts not only grew wheels but several heads and firey breath, but still without any attempt to provide proof for the assertion.

I didn't address him, I addressed you, and what your supposed "proof" is on the subject.

But you addressed me for merely asking for proof for his own assertions, and I have yet to see where I made any assertion except with the use of "I believe", so all I've asserted is what I believe in, and that my belief is evidently shared by virtually ALL the early writers and authors on the subject.

Your point?

That the person making an assertion should have to back their assertion perhaps?

If you are not going to outline your beliefs, to which has a lot to do with your rejection of the premise of this article, you are then engaging in dishonest discourse.

So if I ask for someone to back their assertions without outlining my own beliefs (which I'm pretty sure I already did), then it's "dishonest discourse". Oh the irony.

You do know what the human Genome is right?

No, I've never heard of this "genome" thing before. Or that it's been mapped out recently. Or that it's the basis of human gene codes. Never heard of it. Nope. (Possibly necessary Disclaimer: Sarcasm)

Or the concept of passing on your genes is right? We can track that btw... And just a quick example:

So are you going to explain how that disproves anything? Or are you hoping by merely stating such that the answer is implied somehow?

http://www.hindu.com/seta/2010/11/18/st ... 061200.htm

This is the same process we use to determine who the father is of a child, or if you are related to x-person.

Okay....and this is your reply? I fail to see the cogency of how this disproves anything, perhaps you forgot to mention it?

So please explain where I am literal in one place and metaphorical in another, in detail. Back your assertions.

You take part of genesis (the flood) and consider it literal, and then you make an argument about genesis being non-literal.. That is cherry picking.

For the third time, I never said anything about genesis not being literal. Are you hoping to fool the reader into thinking something I didn't say, or are you honestly not understanding what I said? This is getting ridiculous. As I said before, please quote me where I said ANYTHING about my own beliefs regarding Genesis not being literal. Are you confusing my interpretation with being non-literal? If so, we have a problem, because I'm saying my literal opinion is simply different than how the modern interpretations regard it. So, your claim is not only baseless, but it seems you're ignoring every time I say specifically that I am not saying anything is non-literal. SLOPE is the one who said it's non-literal, and that we KNOW that the original authors didn't intend it to be such. I think you're a bit confused here, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and attribute it to confusion and not just totally deliberate distortion of what I said.

You seem a bit ignorant on the subject.

Thanks, maybe you'll actually get around to explaining how! Also, I don't think you're allowed to call people ignorant here. Just make your case.

And using the term "Earth" is not the correct term unless it's in relation to just dust or dirt..

You were saying something about Goalposts on wheels?

The term "Earth" didn't even exist then, and nor did the term "Planet". The word they specifically used was:

The word itself is "ground". Which can indicate the "Earth" as a whole. Regardless, we do in fact have a similar composition to the "Earth" and "Ground", which you seem to have avoided addressing. It can mean both "Land" in general as well as "The land" which is a specific location.

[

b]The relevant biblical passage is Genesis 2:7, which reads:[/b]

hmfdf)jhf Nmi rpf(f Mdf)fhf t)e Myhilo)v hwfhy: rceyyiwa

v'yyitzer YHWH 'Elohim 'et ha'adam 'aphar min ha'adamah

And that translates to:

"The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground."

The word "Adamah" means:

http://concordances.org/hebrew/127.htm

country (1), dirt (1), dust (3), earth (32), farming* (1), fields (1), ground (64), land (112), lands (2), soil (7).

So it says "land". Which can be interpreted many ways. Regardless, I don't see how man being formed of the "dust" of the "land" ("Soil of the land") is in any way disproven by the following:

The term "Dust" is specifically used in the bible, or "dirt".. And the human body is 75% water molecules and mostly oxygen by mass even though the carbon atom allows to form long molecular chains... And all of this is electromagnetic phenomenon. Hence, we aren't dirt people!.. Water people would have been more accurate to say than dirt people if you still wanted to generally be wrong. There is a reason why the bible doesn't discuss biochemistry, and it's because the people of that era were completely ignorant of it. They made an observation that if you bury someone, or burn them, they appear to just become dust... Hence they believed they were dust people. So it's not a surprise to see this deposited in the mouth of a supposed GOD.. You can't get any worse of a gaffe than that from a supposed deity.

First off, being made from the "dust" doesn't mean we are only made of dust, and the idea that we are nothing but "dust men" I'd like to see a single Rabbinical commentary that says this was the intended case. As this Literalist site says, it implies that we more or less "clay" in which the implication is that water was added:

(Job 10:9) “Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again?�

(Romans 9:20-21) “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?


There is no indication that only dust was used. The earth's crust appears to be about 50% oxygen, compared to about 66% for human beings, which is still roughly the same. And then look at the composition of top soil: Very similar.... Your thing on the oxygen makes me wonder if you're aware the Earth's crust contains oxygen.

What are the scientific proof that man’s body came from the dust of the ground, as the Bible says? The human body is made up of materials and minerals found on the surface of the ground, and not from the core of the earth. Oxygen, being the most abundant element on the earth’s crust or on the ground, makes up 65 percent of the human body, and carbon, also abundant on the top soil of the ground, is 18 percent, and hydrogen is 10 percent. The 59 elements found in the human body are all found on the earths crust. This is amazing because what the Bible says perfectly match the scientific composition of a human body.

http://esoriano.wordpress.com/2007/05/2 ... fic-proof/




So perhaps you'd like to get into a further breakdown on how the human body is not quite like the composition of the ground/Earth/land/soil while you're at it, you skipped that part in your thing on the biochemistry.

Are you the one not claiming the Authors intent was "Metaphorical" ?

I never actually claimed it was or wasn't his intent. Slope did. I simply said what I believe and what all the ancient writers seemed to have agreed with.

Oh really? You think secularists are no ... der note.

You do understand what a secular system is right?

I would think so.

For example, science accepts all arguments provided they can empirically support them.

Apparently this is not always the case for "science", if you follow along the story of theories and models that are debunked as years go on.

Hence I am open to being disproved provided the evidence disproves my position.

Start with the idea that a Sun would irradiate all oxygen-producing life without an ozone layer already in place perhaps. I've discussed this several times on this forum, the rebuttals seem to fall into assuming extremophiles did the work.

This however does not work in such things as religion.
Hence your need to hold on to a science conspiracy theory, or deny anything that doesn't mold into your religious beliefs regardless of the validity of them.

If you want to blindly believe any and all scientific models and theories without seeing the actual raw data itself, feel free. But don't act as if it's somehow wrong to question assumptions especially when you don't have the actual raw data.

Could you please outline where in the bible it makes that argument?

In Genesis 2 perhaps if you read it with the grammar that I presented?

http://www.truthwaylife.com/reality/preAdamic.htm

However, a close examination of the scripture reveals that the world was not translated "universe" but into its more common usage "world". The Greek word 'Kosmos' has many usages mostly to define the condition of "heaven and earth which are now (2pe 3:7)". Similar to the English word "world", it was use to define everything from "our little world" to "the entire world" even the universe.



We get a clue that Paul means “the heaven and earth which are now" because he reveals that sin "entered" the world through Adam. It is a real stretch on logic to conclude that Adam created or made sin and by implication death. The syntax clearly indicates that Sin was around before Adam and "entered" into the world that now is. We have only to go to the Garden of Eden to verify this fact, for Lucifer was there already in a fallen state. Clearly, then Sin was in this world before Adam sinned but was not manifest. In other words had not entered “our World�.

Because from what I can tell, you are just admitting self-inventing context that does not exist in the bible even if you think the bible has been edited numerously in the past. If you ask me, it's that way because nobody had a coherent creations story..

And the idea that it contradicts itself can be argued as "self-inventing context" as well.

Seems you have issues to deal with.. So perhaps you can outline for us Genesis and give everyone here a coherent understanding of it..

The only real issue I have to deal with is Eve being called the "Mother of all (the) living". Mother of "all living" to his own children perhaps, since he lived separated in the garden in my view.

There is nothing to address or attack when you refuse to outline it

.

But what have I not yet outlined exactly? There was a pre-adamite race in my view, Adam was specifically made to live in the Special Garden paradise apart from everything else, and his offspring mated with the pre-adamites, thus "Eve" was the "mother of all living" of the Adamite race.

Telling people they are going on a tangent when you can't even seem to grasp and convey your own version of Genesis, it becomes a dead argument.

I fail to see how I "cant even seem to grasp and convey my own version of Genesis". More smoke screens it is.

Actually it's quite the contrary.

I think I understand now, you think I'm the one who said that we know the author didn't intend to write it literally, so perhaps my objection should be to your comprehension of the exchange between me and Slope, as well as what you quoted from me in the first place.

Because the bible itself makes no such statement and neither does such things as the ELBA..

Huh? What kind of statement would it have to make? "When you see the word "Eretz", it can mean "Land in general", but when you see "Ha-eretz", it can mean a specific region".

That's in the book of Explanations 4:20. (Disclaimer: Sarcasm)

It appears to be completely opinionated..

Just like the DH and the theories behind it perhaps?

But hey, science states that Pre-damite would be correct all the way back to light itself and the fracturing of symmetry from which one force became four.. E=Me ..

Please explain to the class what you're trying to say here in greater detail.

Yep, this requires self-inventing context.

So does the arguments the DH is based on and post 1700s/1800s interpretations in this logic. And your volcano-God theory, where your best proof is the use of the letter "Shin" to represent "fire". But moving on:

So you believe Earth was Created first, then the Garden, then Man, and.... keep going..

Keep going? What else is there to say?

I will wait for you to finish and verify you order of events before I make a response.

To put it simply:

1. Universe-Space and Watery Planet "(Like how Anaxamander believed the earth was originally water)"
2. "Light" (Perhaps Cosmic Background radiation)
3. The "Firmament" (Atmosphere including Ozone layer)
4. Dry ground.
5. "Plants" and seeds and Cyanobacteria.
6. Sun and moon.
7. Water life and birds.
8. Land animals.
9. Pre-adamite race.
10. The Garden of Eden.
11. The Adam (Prime Man)
12. Garden-specific prime animals.


So anyways, let me re-iterate, I am NOT the one saying that it was intended to be metaphorical. That should clear up everything.
[/img]

[TheJackelantern]

At this point I think you're not even trying.

Are you saying snowflakes are hand grafted and that gravity for example is GOD pushing you down? Just curious..

Why is it not coherent?

Nothing coherent can be made of it.

Care to back your assertion?

A: There can be no choice, or decision made without information
B: There can be no consciousness or awareness without information
C: One can not have knowledge without information
D: One can not do anything without information
E: One can not exist without informational value
F: One can not think without information
G: One can not even know one's self exists without information
H: One can not reply, respond, or react without information
I: One can not convey, send, or express a message without information
J: There can be no morals, ethics, or laws without information
K: One can not have or express emotions, or feelings without information
L: One can not have experiences, or experience anything at all without information
M: One can not have a place to exist in order to be existent without information
N: One can not Create, or Design anything without information
O: One can not have the ability to process things without information
P: Intelligence can not exist without information to apply
Q: No system, or process can exist without information
R: Cause and effect can not exist without information
S: Logic can not exist without information
T: Reason can not exist or things can not have a reason / purpose without information
U: There can be no meaning without information
V: There can be no value without information
W: There can be no capacity without informational value
Y: There can be no complexity without informational structure
Z: There can be no "I" without the information that gives I an Identity.

And are you saying your god requires no mind, no knowledge, no information, no place to exist in and so forth?.. Perhaps you can prove me wrong by making a post from a position of no information, use of, or informational value.

You have a habit of straw manning and extracting things that a person doesn't say from what they say I must say.

See how you are backpedaling.. It's not a straw man, it's a valid argument especially when you claim your GOD requires nothing to exist in order to be without cause.. Does your GOD need to be in and of existence like the rest of us? Would it not be slave to require existence (reality), and it's rules to exist? .. Last time I checked, Existence exists without creation simply because non-existence is impossible to exist as a literal existing person, place, object, substance, or thing.. We can't say the same for a conscious state, or any entity you claim to be a conscious being.. And do pay attention to substance listed as well because that also means immateriality is a logical fallacy as things claimed to be made of nothing don't exist.. You can not create that which you are slave to require.

What are these "rules"? Who made these "rules"? The idea of the Creator not needing Creation doesn't violate any kind of rule. Where does matter come from? Where does Free energy come from? Those break the rules by your own logic, and I can back that assertion by a simple question: What caused free matter to be?

Existence will have rules, all things will be required to follow. It's the only Universal set possible. there are 3 fundamental laws that govern cause and effect, information, and energy. These same 3 laws, principles, or attributes govern consciousness, morals, ethics, laws, emotions, and feelings, or any Complex Adaptive system with feedback. So what are they?

* POSITIVE
* NEGATIVE
* NEUTRAL

These are not only the base laws of existence, they are the attributes to everything, and everything we know of is made of energy. thus it's considered under information science and theory that Energy =/= information as both substance and value (as previously noted above). Thus the 3 fundamental properties, attributes, and laws are the cause of all causation. Information and energy are thus simply stated as "Cause".

There can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral;

Action
Reaction
Process
Mathematical equation
Answer
Choice
Decision
Intent
Purpose
Moral
Ethic
Emotion
Feeling
Piece of information
State
Function
Ability
Response
System
Feedback
Opinion
Phenomenon
Condition
Ability
Power
Electric Charge
Selection
Adaptation
Mutation
Transformation
Position
Point of view
Observation
Sensation
Perception
Or the relativity of anything above

Existence is seen as a phenomenal reality of physical self-oscillating, self-organizing energy (information) that makes you, me, the stars, matter, anything with mass, and itself possible. "A universal set of all sets"

You can see this just by looking at your computer screen, understanding how snowflakes form, or watching a simple video on the secret life of ICE:

[youtube][/youtube]

These all deal with complex adaptive systems with feedback. The very same system that is required for any chance at all for the possibility of cognitive dynamics, or a full blown conscious state. Same processes required to display your computer image on your screen, also are directly related to the dynamics and processes required for you to be a conscious entity.

Yes.

That would make you a Pantheist, and everything thus would be GOD, and of GOD itself. That argument would make us all conscious fragments / representatives of GOD.

I'm a Messianic Jew, however a semi-Panentheist. "The universe cannot contain you".

Not according to your above answer. And your argument that a Universe can not contain you makes no sense. You are literally a part of existence / this universe. Hence you can not exist outside of existence as that is a self-refuting argument. And the observable universe is irrelevant if you wanted to play Occam's Razor.. It matters not how many rooms are in the hotel as the there is no outside of the Hotel.. And mind containment to which separates individuals also nullifies your argument.

The idea of G-d always existing is also shared by Pantheist religions. But can you explain how Free matter and free energy came to be? If not, I suggest you stop and think about that.

This didn't answer the question.. How do you design and create that which you are slave to require in order to exist? .. Telling me to stop thinking about it tells me you are having troubles with moving the Goal post since it's at it's limits here. And matter and Energy are the same thing. Also we can only be made of the essence of existence itself. And it so happens to be that energy is what everything is made of.. Energy is the capacity of information. Energy = information = force = cause.. And sorry, Conscious entities can't "always exist".. It's a chicken and the egg argument that can only happen one way.. Consciousness can't be an emergent property without first the inertia and processing of information any more than your computer screen can't display an image without first the inertia and processing of information. And these are unconscious processes that must first occur prior to the emergence of the state of realization to which is a state of awareness..

Information: The Material Physical Cause of Causation

Information = power in every literal sense.. It's higher on the totem pole than anything to which is slave to require it.. It takes more than a single bit or piece of data / information to support the complexity of an Identity much-less a Conscious state.. There is a reason why a rock is not a conscious being, or that a random point in space is not a conscious being. Consciousness requires far more causation and complexity.. Thus fails to account for being the Prime Cause. You have a much better chance of primitive life emerging than a conscious mind.

Is that your way of brushing off what I said?

Yes because reality isn't going to bend to accommodate your beliefs, or to make them magically true. I being apart of reality itself as well, am telling you this.. So here is a shocker, we literally are existence arguing with itself.

Keep repeating yourself there.

Still literally has nothing to do with point 3

So you have nothing tangible to base your belief on?

I have the Creation story in Genesis, what more are you looking for?

So I can use either or and you will believe it's literal context? Because I am catching you adding context below to which does not exist in the bible.. See humans made of dust..

Not really, I use the Creation account in Genesis in the Hebrew. Where did I indicate differently?

We will see about that.

But you addressed me for merely asking for proof for his own assertions, and I have yet to see where I made any assertion except with the use of "I believe", so all I've asserted is what I believe in, and that my belief is evidently shared by virtually ALL the early writers and authors on the subject.

And you are stating they are literal correct?

No, I've never heard of this "genome" thing before. Or that it's been mapped out recently. Or that it's the basis of human gene codes. Never heard of it. Nope. (Possibly necessary Disclaimer: Sarcasm)

Then why did you ask?

Okay....and this is your reply? I fail to see the cogency of how this disproves anything, perhaps you forgot to mention it?

Well, it goes pretty far back in human linage, and it doesn't agree with the literal context of the bible.

For the third time, I never said anything about genesis not being literal. Are you hoping to fool the reader into thinking something I didn't say, or are you honestly not understanding what I said?

Nope.. You just run circles trying to rationalize contradictions of two creation stories.

You were saying something about Goalposts on wheels?

I'm not moving the wheels.. The term Earth is never used..

The word itself is "ground". Which can indicate the "Earth" as a whole.

No it doesn't, it means dust or dirt. Saying ground could mean my wood floors.

The word "Adamah" means:

http://concordances.org/hebrew/127.htm

country (1), dirt (1), dust (3), earth (32), farming* (1), fields (1), ground (64), land (112), lands (2), soil (7).

earth as in dirt... or dust..or soil Thanks for verifying.. And not it does not say water.. That would require another word.

So it says "land". Which can be interpreted many ways. Regardless, I don't see how man being formed of the "dust" of the "land" ("Soil of the land") is in any way disproven by the following:

Because we are not made specifically of dust.

First off, being made from the "dust" doesn't mean we are only made of dust, and the idea that we are nothing but "dust men" I'd like to see a single Rabbinical commentary that says this was the intended case. As this Literalist site says, it implies that we more or less "clay" in which the implication is that water was added:

You are the one that wants to be literal here. It says nothing about anything other than Dust. It doesn't list chemical compounds, amino acids, water, hydrogen or anything. The context is in the form of soil or dirt.

(Job 10:9) “Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again?�

(Romans 9:20-21) “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?

We are not clay people either. And the words of the GOD really out rule the words of those spoken in those verses. The deity said dust..

There is no indication that only dust was used.

That's funny, because the deity said exactly that. Can you please provide me where in the bible it talks about biochemistry?

The earth's crust appears to be about 50% oxygen, compared to about 66% for human beings, which is still roughly the same. And then look at the composition of top soil: Very similar.... Your thing on the oxygen makes me wonder if you're aware the Earth's crust contains oxygen.

Yes water could be in with the dirt or soil, but makes no distinction of using water. And the Earth's crust is not the issue, you are talking about soil, dirt, or dust.. It says nothing about using oxygen, water, hydrogen.. Hence you are riding on a generalization and not specifically adhering to literal interpretation. So unless you find me where in the bible it discusses bio-chemistry, you have no argument:

Soil is a natural body consisting of layers (soil horizons) of primarily mineral constituents of variable thicknesses, which differ from the parent materials in their morphological, physical, chemical, and mineralogical characteristics.[1] In engineering, soil is referred to as regolith, or loose rock material. Strictly speaking, soil is the depth of regolith that influences and has been influenced by plant roots.

Soil is composed of particles of broken rock that have been altered by chemical and mechanical processes that include weathering and erosion. Soil differs from its parent rock due to interactions between the lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, and the biosphere.[2]

What are the scientific proof that man’s body came from the dust of the ground, as the Bible says? The human body is made up of materials and minerals found on the surface of the ground, and not from the core of the earth.

Found in the ground, and makes no argument for such. It just says made of dust.

The 59 elements found in the human body are all found on the earths crust. This is amazing because what the Bible says perfectly match the scientific composition of a human body

Actually it wouldn't be amazing at all.. Their idea of it comes from burning bodies and burying them. Not much of a revelation. However, it doesn't discuss biochemistry what-so-ever. It doesn't even talk about the elements. I could point to a star and get a correct answer of where we came from..




So perhaps you'd like to get into a further breakdown on how the human body is not quite like the composition of the ground/Earth/land/soil while you're at it, you skipped that part in your thing on the biochemistry.

And it's interesting that you put up a mineral graph when Oxygen and hydrogen are not minerals..

Apparently this is not always the case for "science", if you follow along the story of theories and models that are debunked as years go on.

Actually no, most of those carry over as still a part of current models and theories.. Earth being flat to Earth being an Oblate Sphere being a prime example. What support the belief Earth was flat, also is applicable to observations that are consistent with the Earth being an Oblate Sphere. Like averaging heights. But you seem to want to use such an argument in generalizing terms so you can make a conspiracy argument while you sit there and type on a computer that might likely be powered by a nuclear power plant.

Start with the idea that a Sun would irradiate all oxygen-producing life without an ozone layer already in place perhaps. I've discussed this several times on this forum, the rebuttals seem to fall into assuming extremophiles did the work.

Rebuttals? Life likely began at the bottom of the ocean near volcanic deep sea vents to which not only spit up oxygen rich minerals, but also amino acids, and other necessities of life. The sun doesn't have a game to play at such depths btw.. And you have no means of suggesting a zero ozone layer, especially in a highly geologically active Earth. Things like Haze effect from volcanic ash are more than enough to block UV radiation btw. And this includes oil seeps over ocean surfaces to which can also act as a dry solvent as a catalyst. I actually debunked sarfati myself on Early Earth's Atmosphere.

If you want to blindly believe any and all scientific models and theories without seeing the actual raw data itself, feel free. But don't act as if it's somehow wrong to question assumptions especially when you don't have the actual raw data.

And you have raw data? Btw there is lots of raw data in ice cores you can go look at.. You know, cores that date back up to 800,000 years.. Fun stuff!

In Genesis 2 perhaps if you read it with the grammar that I presented?

Your grammar is irrelevant, it matters what it exactly states, and I can see why you need to resort to the "perhaps".. Please post where it states what you said in exacting detail.

http://www.truthwaylife.com/reality/preAdamic.htm

Anything that starts with this has a problem and can not be considered a credible source:

The Young Earth Creationist (YEC) movement has been and is a great fortress against the Satanic Darwin/evolutionary religion.

However, a close examination of the scripture reveals that the world was not translated "universe" but into its more common usage "world". The Greek word 'Kosmos' has many usages mostly to define the condition of "heaven and earth which are now (2pe 3:7)". Similar to the English word "world", it was use to define everything from "our little world" to "the entire world" even the universe.

So you believe Earth was created first? Yes or no?

We get a clue that Paul means “the heaven and earth which are now" because he reveals that sin "entered" the world through Adam.

Did we come out of Adam's butt?

It is a real stretch on logic to conclude that Adam created or made sin and by implication death.

Your omnipotent GOD couldn't stop this or not allow it? Seems like a weak GOD and a poor Parent.

The syntax clearly indicates that Sin was around before Adam and "entered" into the world that now is. We have only to go to the Garden of Eden to verify this fact, for Lucifer was there already in a fallen state. Clearly, then Sin was in this world before Adam sinned but was not manifest. In other words had not entered “our World�.

Four corner time cube.. Now do you have actual evidence of this? And where is the Garden of Eden so we can go Verify this supposed fact?

And the idea that it contradicts itself can be argued as "self-inventing context" as well.

No it can't.. It only requires comparing them side by side. Order of events can't magically be fixed by what you want to believe in.

The only real issue I have to deal with is Eve being called the "Mother of all (the) living". Mother of "all living" to his own children perhaps, since he lived separated in the garden in my view.

That still makes no sense btw... Eve being the first woman really contradicts your version of events or beliefs that people existed prior to.. So what's going on here?

But what have I not yet outlined exactly? There was a pre-adamite race in my view, Adam was specifically made to live in the Special Garden paradise apart from everything else, and his offspring mated with the pre-adamites, thus "Eve" was the "mother of all living" of the Adamite race.

I don't think you understand what pre-adamites means:

Pre-Adamite hypothesis or Preadamism is the religious belief that humans existed before Adam, the first human being described in the Bible

You are not being adherent to Pre-adamite position by still claiming Adam as the first human.

Huh? What kind of statement would it have to make? "When you see the word "Eretz", it can mean "Land in general", but when you see "Ha-eretz", it can mean a specific region".

Where is this specific "region".. You have GPS coordinates?

Please explain to the class what you're trying to say here in greater detail.

You are an energy being made of atoms, and atoms made of energy to which is fashioned by electromagnetism within the belly of star.. Your history goes back to light itself. That is where the heavier elements come from.

So does the arguments the DH is based on and post 1700s/1800s interpretations in this logic. And your volcano-God theory, where your best proof is the use of the letter "Shin" to represent "fire". But moving on:

No the best proof is using the entire bible in relation to that. You are Jewish and you should know that they symbol is also a name for your GOD.. There is a reason why the spirit of GOD is said to be kept int he flame.

So you believe Earth was Created first, then the Garden, then Man, and.... keep going..

Keep going? What else is there to say?

To put it simply:

1. Universe-Space and Watery Planet "(Like how Anaxamander believed the earth was originally water)"
2. "Light" (Perhaps Cosmic Background radiation)
3. The "Firmament" (Atmosphere including Ozone layer)
4. Dry ground.
5. "Plants" and seeds and Cyanobacteria.
6. Sun and moon.
7. Water life and birds.
8. Land animals.
9. Pre-adamite race.
10. The Garden of Eden.
11. The Adam (Prime Man)
12. Garden-specific prime animals.

This order is not described in Genesis, And nor does genesis state (cosmic background radiation)... But lets play this..

1. How was the Universe created, and by what mechanisms? And how was Earth a Watery ball prior to having land? More specifically, how did you have water in a liquid form in the frigged vacuum of space? Especially when Earth isn't mostly water..

2. Cosmic Background radiation came from the Big Bang and Doesn't produce light in the visible spectrum

3. How was the ozone layer formed if Earth is just Hydrogen and Oxygen in the form of water molecules and no sun to convert them to Gas? How do you get a stable atmosphere within just a vacuum.. And when was gravity invented?

5. Plants and seed before the existence of the sun? Do you realize background radiation isn't going to cut it right? It's pretty difficult to photosynthesize without actual sun light.

6. The Sun younger than the Earth? Wouldn't this would defy observations of planet formation around other stars. And when were the other stars introduced here?

These are your main failures. Especially concerning "Light", Plants before the Sun ect..



But let's look at the order described in genesis:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Formless? So how does it have a "surface", or waters in a vacuum of space? Is it an Ice ball?..

3 And God said, “Let there be light,� and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,� and the darkness he called “night.� And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Light? What light? There isn't a star in sight. How do you have a morning without sun light? And Without the Sun Earth can not be warm enough to have liquid water or an Atmosphere. Oceans on something a drift in a vacuum?

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.� 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.� And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Still no sun, moon, or stars and separating water from water? So the Atmosphere here was all H20? Not only is it tough to have water in vapor form without a sun, the vapor also means heat, and if you understand water vapor and latent heat, it's not going to be friendly to life on Earth it's about to claim exists in these conditions. And it says nothing about Atmospheric pressure, or other gases that are supposed to be in the atmosphere.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.� And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,� and the gathered waters he called “seas.� And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.� And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Wait.. Wasn't Earth a water ball? Isn't it already gathered in one place? And where did dry land come from? Land magically appears and water gathers to form seas ect.. Check!.. And plants growing without sunlight, or having Co2? So far it's just H20!.. So plants growing in a pure oxygen environment with no sun to photosynthesize with.. And still no sun to have a morning, or day with..

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.� And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Wait a second.. How did he separate day and night before the lights were placed in the sky.. So now we have actual days and nights? Were the others just placebos? Coherency here would be nice.. So now plants can actually be viable giving that we now have sun light. Also, the Moon isn't a light, it reflects sunlight.

Also, our Sun was the first sun? and the Moon the first moon? And then the stars were made.. There are several problems with this. They type of star we have vs other stars and how stars die. This means this order of events is false to begin with. Lastly, supernova observations vs time and distance of light from said observed supernova would also debunk this argument entirely:

http://www.physorg.com/news166279337.html


[youtube][/youtube]

That's a 11 billion years.. And your argument makes no sense when we look through a telescope and see the evolution of stars and galaxies to younger stages and states as we look further out into space... Our star is indeed a young star, and it's also why it's not a Red Giant. By the time that light reached us, Earth would no longer exist or be viable for life. Our sun would have long started burning more helium than hydrogen to where it would literally fry this planet before it ever expanded to totally destroy it.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.� 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.� 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

Then he later kills them all for it.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.� And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

And then kills them all for it.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.�

Our image? Yep, a little polytheistic slip up there. And in his own image? Is he.. er they a dirt person/people too?

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

So GOD creates dirt people in his own image.. Interesting!