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.

[Shermana]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TheJackelantern]

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

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

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

Unfortunately this fringe actually has overwhelming evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Shermana]

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

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

Unfortunately this fringe actually has overwhelming evidence.

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

This is not a proper response to point 3.

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

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

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

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

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

And it is quite easily debunked.

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

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

Start a new thread if you'd like.

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

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

See your response to point 4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 14:

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

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

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

[Shermana]

From Post 14:

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

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

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

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

[TheJackelantern]

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

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

[Shermana]

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

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

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

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

FlatEarthers do the same thing btw.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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.