mrzyphl

...and both stories are equally absurd. i.e inconsistencies, contradictions, irrationality, illogic, childish fairy tail aspect (unscientific) etc.

trh

I've heard that one, but there's still a problem for them in the original, which I emphasized by highlighting in bold: The J author, dealing with the "Garden of Eden" creation says: "In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens...no plant of the field was yet in the earth."

First of all, J has God creating man on day 1. Secondly, J says that there were no plants yet in the earth. Perhaps for that second one, a case can be made that "earth" just means "soil" rather than "the whole planet". :huh: This is the sort of thing I am curious about...


As an atheist (in the weaker sense) / metaphysical naturalist, I am inclined to agree with you. But what I am interested in is what I might encounter from the "smarter" (if still unreasonable) defenders of coherency (if not literalism) with regard to these stories.

So let me rephrase, without any potential oxymorons:
Should I encounter a fundamentalist or literalist or believer in the coherency of Genesis - one with a high IQ, perhaps - can I really expect an immediate hands-down victory against them with only these two examples, or is the debate likely to go into another round or two? If the latter, what might I expect from them?

:banghead: ,
-Tom

Anat

The purpose of the extra clean animals was for sacrificing them - see Genesis 8:20. There would have been a tradition of which animals are suitable for sacrifice since the days of Abel. I would guess it would have been understood that Noah took one pair of clean animals to keep the species going and in addition 7 pairs for ritual purposes, with 7 being a number with symbolic significance.

Regarding the creation of plants, I think the traditional Jewish explanation is that God planted the seeds of the plants on day 3, but they actually grew after Adam was created on day 6.

Loomis

Are you only looking for retarded apologies from believers? (For entertainment, amusement, mocking, humiliation, etc.)

Or are you genuinely interested in hearing some speculation on how the bible may have ended up this way?

I think that later is more interesting.

Loomis

Have you visited CARM?

Introducing Matthew J. Slick:

http://www.carm.org/diff/Gen_1.htm

:rolling:

Wallener

For them to ask you to define coherent.

Since the stories are clearly allegorical, there is no trouble at all making them coherent since they share a common purpose - situating our place in the universe and giving "us" a less-vague sense of origin.

Chris Weimer

Yes, especially if I wash off the pig and say "Look! It's clean now." The clean/unclean terminology in the second Noah story is anachronistic in that the dietary laws determining specifically clean/unclean weren't around just yet. In other words, God saying take seven of every clean animal would be rendered as gibberish ("Hey God, you mean the ones that aren't dirty?").

Chris

Chris Weimer

1. Round squares do not exist (er, that is, your coherent literalist) and 2. You can never win when they claim that "With God, all things are possible" or "Blah blah blah I can't hear you blah blah blah."

Notsri

In Gen 1:11f., the vegetation in general springs forth from the land (eretz). Gen 2:5 refers more limitedly to the "plant of the field" (eseb ha'ssadeh). And there's a reason why the author mentions the absence of specifically these plants in 2:5: he's anticipating the Fall of man in the narrative, after which, when the fruits of the garden are no longer man's sustenance, and he's compelled to work the ground (3:23), it's the "plants of the field" (eseb ha'ssadeh) that now arise from the earth (eretz) and become his food (3:18).

Regards,
Notsri

badger3k

Welcome to posting, since you say you've been reading a while.
:wave:

I think the banghead is the appropriate response when debating many inerrantists. You'll hear all kind of excuses on a variety of things. One thread I am following (which I think is over due to banghead - or, to take it up a notch, facepalm leading to headdesk) is an illustration of the type of "logic" to expect: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=121739. If you read it, read it all the way through before you think of posting (if you were so inclined).