Doctor X

GD:

Neither deal with the "initial creation of the universe." Both myths deal with the reordering of the world; the establishment of "the world as we know it." That having been clarified the myths do, indeed, refer to the same event as demonstrated above.

CyberShy:

As above, two different myths stitched together.

En passant:

There is no "royal we" in Hebrew. "Us" refers to the "other gods." The monotheism that develops is more of a "our god is better/greater than your god" then "there be only one."

Elohim is "gods" but when used by the P writer it tries to "monotheize" the concept in this manner. YHWH is used by the J writer.

Much simpler.

--J.D.

CyberShy

Read closer
In gen1 the stars are made. This includes the planets etc.
Thus: in gen1 the initial creation of the universe is told about.

gen2 deals with an already established earth on which the garden of Eden is planted, with trees (etc) that didn't have to be invented but just only had to grow. (al I explained in my post which you ignored for 95% )

Repeating the same argument doesn't make it true
For sure not if new arguments against such an argument have been made, and been ignored.

Or it refers to a plural God, which is consistant with the rest of the Bible. Of course that's interpertation, but so is your explanation.

If you interpertate two stories in such a way that they contradict each other, than not the stories contradict each other, but your interpertation of the stories do conflict.

Doctor X

A close reading would indicate that the "waters of the deep" exists prior to the time. It would also indicate that the verb was initially understood--and used in other parts of the OT--as "cut" as in "separate."

Easier to demonstrate a false assumption than to hew the poison'd results of said false assumption.


This would then remove your remaining 5%.

you have offered no new arguments that address the Documentary Hypothesis.

YHWH is presented in a rather singular fashion.

Ipse dixit and, unfortunately, incorrect.

It remains merely apology to make two separate stories which different details harmonious.

--J.D.

CyberShy

which is a true assumption. Verse 1 reads that God created the heaven and the earth 'in the beginning'
The 6 days continue on that creation. But when God created heaven and earth, the universe as we know it didn't exist yet.

The creation of the earth apparently included the waters, which were indeed seperated during the '6 days'.

Easier to respond with some cheap philosophy that completely ignores the argument than admit that one is wrong

Indeed, right now you have ignored a complete 100% of my argumentation. Oh wait, that's not true, your first argument was indeed a very valid counter-argument.

That said, I have to disagree with you on this as well: You reacted to at least 10% of my argumentation this time! you're in progress! Keep up the good work

But fortunately you have ignored so many of my old arguments that new ones aren't needed. I'll give you a little help, why don't you explain why I'm wrong on gen2 dealing with the planing of the garden of eden rather than the '6 day period'.

He apparently is not in gen1, in which he's presented at least in a dual fashion (his spirit, which is over the waters, and his speaking fashion whom's word speaks and it is)

But you are right that God is presented both in a plural as a singular fashion in the Bible. This is explained by his one-being being seperated in 3 entities.

That's dogma indeed, but it isn't a contradiction.

Of course in a good rational debate the explanation follows after the qualification. But again you can come no further than the qualification. That we disagree with each other is a fact. But if this thread is only devoted to that fact, and we keep spending time on it, it's a waste of time. Thus let's honor rationality instead of blatant atheistic fundamentalism, and explain your opinion instead of just stating it as being true because you think so.

It's not an apology but an explanation.
And even after your post the explanation still stands.
Not because of the quality of your counter-arguments, but rather because of the lack of them.

I have to compliment you with your words. You're able to give well written reactions!
I have to discompliment you with the content though.
You didn't say much, unfortunately

CyberShy

Doctor X

An report of a fact is not an assumption.

The "waters of the deep" pre-exist the separation of the heavens from the earth.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

while the individual may, indeed, find this "easier" it is not scholarship, and he would do well to cease reliance upon it.

"Quality, not quantity," to paraphrase Cla . . . Cla . . . Claudius.

"Quality, not quantity." As noted, when one tries to build a house of cards over faulty assumptions, one does not need to deal with each individual card when the fautly assumptions are removed.

It will recognize the failure to confront the Documentary Hypothesis.

Quod erat demonstrandum times two. . . .

Ipse dixit and not supported by the texts, unfortunately. I refer, again, to the Documentary Hypothesis.

See reference to the Documentary Hypothesis above which, oddly enough, is not "blatant atheistic fundamentalism." I will leave it to less kind men to dissect that fallacy.

Ipse dixit and, unfortunately, wrong. I refer again, with some redundancy in its repetitiveness, to the Documentary Hypothesis.

Perchance some color would help: Documentary Hypothesis

Mayhaps this: Documentary Hypothesis

That the individual fails to read or consider the current state of scholarship remains his error:

Quod erat demonstrandum times four. . . .

If the individual would open his eyes he may, indeed, see.

--J.D.

[Edited to redact to the Textus Recepticus.--Ed.]

Amaleq13

It appears to contain a contradiction (i.e. one-being cannot, by definition, equal 3 separate entities). This is not an explanation, it is a belief.

"Quid pro quo, Clarice." - Hannibal Lector

Please honor rationality and explain your belief that God can be both singular and separated in 3 entities.

Doctor X

HANNIBAL LECTOR IS GOD!!! [Stop that!--Ed.]

Right . . . sorry . . . carry on. . . .

--J.D.

CyberShy

Doctor X,

A true thing, but your response lacks both quality and quantity.
You haven't countered my explanation about the differences between gen1 and gen2. All you did was starting a discussion about the question if the universe was created during the '6 days' or not.

I followed you into that discussion as a rookie, but discovered it late, but not too late.
Let's get back on topic:

gen1 is the creation of earth, plants, trees and human.
gen2 is about placing human in the garden of Eden, and growing plants, trees in this garden.

As I have complimented you already, your knowledge about discussion is good. Now apply it!
You haven't countered any of my cards, so the house still stands.

Besides that, I have given several possible explanations that can stand next to each other. In fact there are many houses, not one.
And the one you tried to collapse hasn't collapsed since you removed a card that wasn't a part of the house. (while I still even disagree that you removed it, but let's cease that off topic discussion)

which is indeed a valid explanation to this case as well.

Amaleq13:

The USA is one 'country' but it consists of more states.
God apparently consists of more entities. We're just not familiar with the being of 'God'. If there is a God (which is not the current discussion topic) then the nature of this God can't be captured within the borders of our limitations.

Doctor X

Fortunately, one does not have to rely upon this individual as a judge of taste.

Ipse dixit and wrong.

I demonstrated that the individual did not understand the myth he based his assumptions upon.

As for the "return to the topic" is dealt with the competing creation myths. This has been addressed previously if the individual would kindly read the entire thread.

Internment of digits into the depths of the acoustic meatii does not a response make.

Further claims about the sturdiness of his domicle follow which prove irrelevant to the discussion.

since it does not require apologetic misunderstanding of the texts I am forced to consider it more pursuassive than the individual's. Should he wish to rebuild his domicile he must demonstrate where the DH is wrong and why his explanation works better. He has thus far failed in his attempts with the later whilst ignoring the former.

Whilst Amaleq13 does not require my assistance, one should assist in "bringing the puppy to the paper" to maintain proper feng shue:

False analogy.

The anthropomorphic representations would force one to render this as "an individual is one 'body' but it consists of more . . . er . . . well."

Appeals to ignorance do not work either. We apparently can, and do, try to understand the writers' conceptions of their deities. They changed over time.

--J.D.

CyberShy

Doctor X, your talent to avoid the debate and come with irrelevant lines is huge! I hope some people might come who can do more than you do......... which is coming with arguments