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.
The Order of Creation
Moderator: Moderators
-
revelationtestament
- Scholar
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:48 am
Post #81
Quote:
He then said I have given you a day for a year... in other words they would be wandering for 40 years.
So .... highly relevant.
"Umm no, it never specifies that and it still doesn't make any coherent sense."
Prophetically each day stands for a year. see, Nos. 14:34. Ezekiel 4:6. "After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise." Nos. 14:34.
Quote:
First the earth was without form. Then as the earth began to form out of the primordial solar system, there came to be light.
"Genesis only states without form and nothing about primordial solar system ect... See this is where the honesty of your argument takes a suicidal jump off the cliff without a parachute. And to say something exists without form and then begins to form is entirely incoherent. And in terms of cosmology, it literally is incoherent in every way."
Really? It is incoherent to say the earth was without form, and then began to form? Come now - I don't play these rediculous semantics. In normal verbage, every scientist would say the earth was once without form, and began to form through gravity and the laws of physics. My reference to the primordial solar system, ie the earliest solar system, was meant to be the scientific version of the creation. I know the Bible doesn't use such language, as do you and everyone else.
Quote:
Then when the earth began to rotate, the night was divided from the day.
"Again, no such thing is discussed in the bible. And what's worse is that you are attempting to paste modern cosmological understanding to people who were largely illiterate and really had nothing more than a simplistic observational understanding of their world and the cosmos. And that is your error to start with."
OK poor choice of words. When the earth had formed enough to have a surface separated from all the dust and mist it formed out of, the night and day became apparent.
Quote:
The first life.. plants... science again says yes. The first earth life was in the sea....science says yes. Next land animals... last man. Science agrees.
"Science makes no statement of saying plants were first. Especially not in the context in which the bible states. And nor was man the last.. Science does not agree."
Science does say the earliest fossil records reveal plant life or organisms through their fossilized microspores with the earliest animal life coming out of the sea. Before that there was just single cell life in the sea. Least that's what they taught me in school. And yes, modern man was last.
Quote:
Gen 1 is a concise history of the physical creation over the 6 generations it took to create it.
"That's like saying averaging heights is a concise description of a flat Earth while living on a Oblate sphere. Your use of concise here was not very well thought out.. And anyone can get a child's understanding of the cosmos just by taking the time to actually observe it with the intent to understand it. However, even if this child's understanding of the universe gets the order of things correct, it will not suddenly make their magical beliefs any more relevant or real... There is just 1 in 3000 chance to get it right."
Well at least you are starting to admit that the Bible has the order right, and in much more correct physical detail than "creation myths" from other religions.
From the dictionary concise means marked by brevity of expression or statement : free from all elaboration and superfluous detail. I submit that describing the creation of the solar system in one page is what Genesis attempts to do, and does it in the right order.
He then said I have given you a day for a year... in other words they would be wandering for 40 years.
So .... highly relevant.
"Umm no, it never specifies that and it still doesn't make any coherent sense."
Prophetically each day stands for a year. see, Nos. 14:34. Ezekiel 4:6. "After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise." Nos. 14:34.
Quote:
First the earth was without form. Then as the earth began to form out of the primordial solar system, there came to be light.
"Genesis only states without form and nothing about primordial solar system ect... See this is where the honesty of your argument takes a suicidal jump off the cliff without a parachute. And to say something exists without form and then begins to form is entirely incoherent. And in terms of cosmology, it literally is incoherent in every way."
Really? It is incoherent to say the earth was without form, and then began to form? Come now - I don't play these rediculous semantics. In normal verbage, every scientist would say the earth was once without form, and began to form through gravity and the laws of physics. My reference to the primordial solar system, ie the earliest solar system, was meant to be the scientific version of the creation. I know the Bible doesn't use such language, as do you and everyone else.
Quote:
Then when the earth began to rotate, the night was divided from the day.
"Again, no such thing is discussed in the bible. And what's worse is that you are attempting to paste modern cosmological understanding to people who were largely illiterate and really had nothing more than a simplistic observational understanding of their world and the cosmos. And that is your error to start with."
OK poor choice of words. When the earth had formed enough to have a surface separated from all the dust and mist it formed out of, the night and day became apparent.
Quote:
The first life.. plants... science again says yes. The first earth life was in the sea....science says yes. Next land animals... last man. Science agrees.
"Science makes no statement of saying plants were first. Especially not in the context in which the bible states. And nor was man the last.. Science does not agree."
Science does say the earliest fossil records reveal plant life or organisms through their fossilized microspores with the earliest animal life coming out of the sea. Before that there was just single cell life in the sea. Least that's what they taught me in school. And yes, modern man was last.
Quote:
Gen 1 is a concise history of the physical creation over the 6 generations it took to create it.
"That's like saying averaging heights is a concise description of a flat Earth while living on a Oblate sphere. Your use of concise here was not very well thought out.. And anyone can get a child's understanding of the cosmos just by taking the time to actually observe it with the intent to understand it. However, even if this child's understanding of the universe gets the order of things correct, it will not suddenly make their magical beliefs any more relevant or real... There is just 1 in 3000 chance to get it right."
Well at least you are starting to admit that the Bible has the order right, and in much more correct physical detail than "creation myths" from other religions.
From the dictionary concise means marked by brevity of expression or statement : free from all elaboration and superfluous detail. I submit that describing the creation of the solar system in one page is what Genesis attempts to do, and does it in the right order.
-
TheJackelantern
- Under Probation
- Posts: 772
- Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:48 am
Post #82
Science says Energy... and your religion says nothing, or no form of any kind.. Who's the nihilist here? Ah yes, you genesis is completely incoherent with science.Really? It is incoherent to say the earth was without form, and then began to form? Come now - I don't play these rediculous semantics. In normal verbage, every scientist would say the earth was once without form, and began to form through gravity and the laws of physics. My reference to the primordial solar system, ie the earliest solar system, was meant to be the scientific version of the creation. I know the Bible doesn't use such language, as do you and everyone else.
You could sit there trying to argue nano-seconds vs minutes and It would still be completely incoherent to the order of events.Prophetically each day stands for a year. see, Nos. 14:34. Ezekiel 4:6. "After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise." Nos. 14:34.
Now you are completely incoherent with the order of events in Genesis.. You really know how to play the shuffle game don't you? Nor does Genesis say :OK poor choice of words. When the earth had formed enough to have a surface separated from all the dust and mist it formed out of, the night and day became apparent.
Can you please show us this verse? I don't recall that verse in Genesis.When the earth had formed enough to have a surface separated from all the dust and mist it formed out of, the night and day became apparent.
Genesis makes no mention of "microspores", bacterial or anything for that matter.. It discusses plants planted in the garden of eden, and even thinks all plants bare seeds. And please prove modern man is the last species to arrive here on Earth.. We find new species all the time emerging..Science does say the earliest fossil records reveal plant life or organisms through their fossilized microspores with the earliest animal life coming out of the sea. Before that there was just single cell life in the sea. Least that's what they taught me in school. And yes, modern man was last.
Incorrect.Gen 1 is a concise history of the physical creation over the 6 generations it took to create it.
Incorrect.Well at least you are starting to admit that the Bible has the order right, and in much more correct physical detail than "creation myths" from other religions.
-
Slopeshoulder
- Banned
- Posts: 3367
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:46 pm
- Location: San Francisco
Post #83
There is a deeper issue here.
TheJackLantern and I (and others) have pointed out the obvious non-historicity of Genesis 1-2. He has debunked it as science, and I have debunked it as history by referencing its form and cultic function as mythic literature of a specifically hebrew-covenant variant.
But we come up against magical thinking and stonewalling and unreason from those who seek to argue in favor of historicity.
The important philosopher Richard Rorty understood this. He used to talk about what he called, in the context of reason and epistemology, "conversation enders." These are usually intransigent non-rational appeals to things like magical thinking, religious extremism, conspiracy theory, blatant counterfactuality, disregard for broad consensus, a clear pattern of unreason, sophistry, bad faith, and fallacy, and extreme ideologies, as well as among the simple redneck, undeducated, unintelligent, and those with an idee fixe, that literally step outside the framework of epistemically sound conversation, making it impossible to continue. But most people who deliver a conversation ender are not stupid per se, meaning cognitively challenged, they just choose not to or are compelled not to participate in legitimate rational conversation.
When confronted with a reply or comment from a person who delivers a conversation ender, as we are here constantly, proper and epistemically coherent conversation stops and something else takes its place - conversation as defined as an open and rational discourse simply ends; conversation enders take place outside legitimate conversation even though words and sentences may be used. IMO people who deliver conversation enders, by stepping outside the epistemically and logically recognizable, locate themselves outside of civilization itself, which has as a threshold criteria the willingness to engage in epistemically legitimate and coherent conversation.
When we are confronted with a conversation ender, we have three choices: co-existence, containment, or conflict (that's me talking, not Rorty), but we will never get mutual understanding and engagement. It is the job of philosophers's Rorty says, to point out errors in thought and expression in order to minimize conversation enders.
People who claim Genesis 1-2 are science or history, and not mythic in form, intent, and use, are delivering conversation enders, and in doing so do violence to scripture, religion, science, history, reason, and civilization. We need to be civil to them in this forum, and accord to them equal protection under the law in real life, but let's call it what it is and not seek to engage but rather to contain in order to avoid conflict. If anything, conversation enders provide an opportunity for others to be less sanguine about the fragile achievements of civilization and to consolidate in community and around legitimate conversation.
That's all I have to say on the matter and will not reply to conversation enders because, well, the conversation is ended. Conversation enders usually lash out, ratcheting up the violence through verbal assaults. But tough noogies, we're done.
TheJackLantern and I (and others) have pointed out the obvious non-historicity of Genesis 1-2. He has debunked it as science, and I have debunked it as history by referencing its form and cultic function as mythic literature of a specifically hebrew-covenant variant.
But we come up against magical thinking and stonewalling and unreason from those who seek to argue in favor of historicity.
The important philosopher Richard Rorty understood this. He used to talk about what he called, in the context of reason and epistemology, "conversation enders." These are usually intransigent non-rational appeals to things like magical thinking, religious extremism, conspiracy theory, blatant counterfactuality, disregard for broad consensus, a clear pattern of unreason, sophistry, bad faith, and fallacy, and extreme ideologies, as well as among the simple redneck, undeducated, unintelligent, and those with an idee fixe, that literally step outside the framework of epistemically sound conversation, making it impossible to continue. But most people who deliver a conversation ender are not stupid per se, meaning cognitively challenged, they just choose not to or are compelled not to participate in legitimate rational conversation.
When confronted with a reply or comment from a person who delivers a conversation ender, as we are here constantly, proper and epistemically coherent conversation stops and something else takes its place - conversation as defined as an open and rational discourse simply ends; conversation enders take place outside legitimate conversation even though words and sentences may be used. IMO people who deliver conversation enders, by stepping outside the epistemically and logically recognizable, locate themselves outside of civilization itself, which has as a threshold criteria the willingness to engage in epistemically legitimate and coherent conversation.
When we are confronted with a conversation ender, we have three choices: co-existence, containment, or conflict (that's me talking, not Rorty), but we will never get mutual understanding and engagement. It is the job of philosophers's Rorty says, to point out errors in thought and expression in order to minimize conversation enders.
People who claim Genesis 1-2 are science or history, and not mythic in form, intent, and use, are delivering conversation enders, and in doing so do violence to scripture, religion, science, history, reason, and civilization. We need to be civil to them in this forum, and accord to them equal protection under the law in real life, but let's call it what it is and not seek to engage but rather to contain in order to avoid conflict. If anything, conversation enders provide an opportunity for others to be less sanguine about the fragile achievements of civilization and to consolidate in community and around legitimate conversation.
That's all I have to say on the matter and will not reply to conversation enders because, well, the conversation is ended. Conversation enders usually lash out, ratcheting up the violence through verbal assaults. But tough noogies, we're done.
-
TheJackelantern
- Under Probation
- Posts: 772
- Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:48 am
-
Slopeshoulder
- Banned
- Posts: 3367
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:46 pm
- Location: San Francisco
Post #86
Moderator Comment
These are exactly the type of unproductive one-liners that Rule #9 is meant to avoid.
Please review the Rules.
______________
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.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
-
1213
- Savant
- Posts: 12747
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
- Location: Finland
- Has thanked: 446 times
- Been thanked: 468 times
Post #87
Do you know Münchhausen Trilemma? Most of your "facts" fail to overcome that trilemma. Therefore they are nothing more than beliefs. If you disagree, show me one "evidence" for your statements that is not 1. circular argument 2. regressive argument 3. axiomatic.SailingCyclops wrote:This is patently untrue. There is much EVIDENCE to support every fact I stated. The "proof" of those statements can be found in any high school science and modern history text, chronicling evidence gathered over several centuries of observation and experimentation.1213 wrote:No one can really prove any of your claims.
-
1213
- Savant
- Posts: 12747
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
- Location: Finland
- Has thanked: 446 times
- Been thanked: 468 times
Post #88
History of science shows that it is constantly changing. I don't see any reason to believe what it now claims of things that are speculative and not possible to see experimentally. After 100 years it may have been changed radically and therefore it is not worth much.McCulloch wrote: The evidence indicates that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old. The Sun was formed about 4.57 billion years ago. The galaxy UDFy-38135539 is 13.1 billion light-years away from us. The light now reaching us from that galaxy was emitted before the Earth was formed. Thus at least some stars are older than Earth.
There is too much regressive arguments and axiomatic arguments to take those claims seriously.
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #89
Karl Popper's falllibilsm is certainly a much more rational response to that. Karl Albert also pushed that.1213 wrote:Do you know Münchhausen Trilemma? Most of your "facts" fail to overcome that trilemma. Therefore they are nothing more than beliefs. If you disagree, show me one "evidence" for your statements that is not 1. circular argument 2. regressive argument 3. axiomatic.SailingCyclops wrote:This is patently untrue. There is much EVIDENCE to support every fact I stated. The "proof" of those statements can be found in any high school science and modern history text, chronicling evidence gathered over several centuries of observation and experimentation.1213 wrote:No one can really prove any of your claims.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
-
TheJackelantern
- Under Probation
- Posts: 772
- Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:48 am
Post #90
And that is why you are typing on a computer likely powered by a nuclear power plant right?... It seems you don't know how science works, and you are making a pretty bad argument here. So if you think science isn't worth much, you can go back to living like the Amish, or Indians... And you do realize that your computer rests upon particle physics and in dealing with electrons right? The feeling I get from your post is the common intellectual laziness as an excuse to not needing to try and understand anything in science..History of science shows that it is constantly changing. I don't see any reason to believe what it now claims of things that are speculative and not possible to see experimentally. After 100 years it may have been changed radically and therefore it is not worth much.
There is too much regressive arguments and axiomatic arguments to take those claims seriously.
Your computer.one "evidence" for your statements that is not 1. circular argument 2. regressive argument 3. axiomatic.
