TheDiddleyMan

I haven't had time to look at the alleged passages in depth, but I do know that many christians have difficulty reconciling them, or claimed so. See, for example, one of Josh McDowell's books "Answers to Hard Questions" or something like that.

Anyhow, I lost the above book awhile ago and am wondering what the specific "contradictions" are, as in reading the passage myself, Magus55 statement that Gen 2 is from man's perspective seems to be somewhat reasonable, but I haven't really looked at the passages in depth.


Kevin

Amos

In Gen 1 the essence of existence is created with "I said" and in Gen 2 that which was created in Gen. 1 was formed.

It is a very complex account and so in Gen.1 also the fall and redemption of man was created (the essence of our fallen nature must be created before it can be conceived to become a reality) and this was also laid out in Gen.2

Ellis14

There are contradictions between the two creation accounts in terms of what life was created first.

There are contradictions between the original language used for God, i.e.: a dual-God in Genesis 1 and a mono-God in Genesis 2.

The common accepted opinion by some non-theists is that the two Genesis accounts are collections of several creation myths that were constructed, over time, independant of each other.

See here: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.co...a/by_book.html

Amos

How can that be if the essence is and must be created before it can be called into existence.

Ellis14

Sorry Amos, would you like to address the issue of contradiction I made. Read it slowly and use your finger if you have to.

Amos

I did Ellis, honestly I did, but you did not get it I think. Try shaking your head once, maybe that will help.

spin

I'm sure that you with a little cogitation would not hold this position based on the text of Gen 1.

For example, when God said, "let there be light" in 1:3, he goes on to separate the light from darkness in 1:4, such that what was said had already been formed. 1:6 has a speaking and 1:7 has a realisation of the words ending with "And it was so", ie it had happened there and then.

Gen 1 was not simply the conceptualisation but also the giving of both form and existence. You can't separate without the form. You can't make the dome whose language implies being beaten into form without, umm, form being involved.


spin

Magus55

Not if Gen 2 was from man's perspective. The Bible says God brought the animals to Adam. If Adam was just created, with nothing but himself around, He would explain it that He was created first.

Amos

Not really and the best I will do is agree that the mythmaker was pushing his luck a little to conceal the argument under the surface structure. Remember here that it was his business to speak the truth but conceal it so it would attract followers.

God created light and light is life. When God saw how 'good' the light was the contradiction is implied that darkens is death (or life can not be good) and out of this concept the fall of man was created wherefore evening came already on the first day-- or it could not not follow on the seventh day when we are born unto eternal life and therefore evening does not follow the day.

According to this analogy life and the fall of man was created on the first day.

The waters are equal to knowledge and the dome is where knowledge can expand over the fullness of time. The division above and below the waters allow for knoweldge to accumulate and be retained between two minds that are twain and not twin with the sky being the limit. It is what makes heaven round, life beautiful and gives us the desire to live and learn.

That was a nice promise, I think.

spin

This is mainly your assumption, isn't it? We need to start with what the source says, not our opinions.

The first part doesn't belong with the second part, at least while ascertaining what the author said. What appears in one text has no necessary relation with that of another. Different texts can happily contradict others.

Here you are totally leaving your source text. By doing so you give yourself no chance of relating your comments ot the source, except as an excursion from it, often called "flow of consciousness".

The method of going off in a tangent from the source text, then making assumptions on that tangent, which leads to new tangents I don't find helpful to the text at all.

More assumption. Evening follows the day and that is explained in our source text. There is no hint that evening shall at some stage not follow the day.

It was not an analogy.

What in the source text causes you to think these things?

What you have said doesn't come from your source text. That is my problem with what you said.


spin