Hawkingfan

I'm not reading Genesis with the purpose of *overlooking* flaws. The first chapter describes a process yes. But so does the second. The second one contradicts the first. That should not happen according to the will of an omnipotent being supposedly behind it. You keep saying that the second is "more focused on the garden" but the bible does not mention the garden until *after* a major inconsistency. Another strange thing is that you said the vegetation came first, then man, then the garden. But in Chapter 2 verses 8 and 9, we have: 1. garden first, 2. then man is placed there, 3. then "all kinds of trees grow out of the ground". That is the reverse of what you said. And this last mentioning of "ALL KINDS of trees" can't be the garden because it was already there. And it's really odd that 2:5 says, "no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground..." Then if this is the same account as chapter 1, how in the heck did the vegetation grow in 1:11 without rain and man?

I too must say I am VERY impressed with your honesty.


Edited for strange wording (I corrected it).

Hawkingfan

That's not what I said. "every plant yielding seed" *includes* the poisonous plants I listed (they yield seed and fall under the adjective "every"). Poisonous plants are not "food for us", unless you'd like to eat some oleander and prove me wrong. The verse is an obvious overlooked mistake.

Both knew God did not want them to eat it, and they had a choice. But they could *not* have known that one choice was good and one choice was evil if they had *not* yet eaten the fruit that would give them that knowledge!

uh, yeah...maybe (???) And pigs flew too back then, right? I count it as absurd because there is no logical reason to believe it *not* to be. Unless you have one?

brings up the problem of evil, a tangent to this topic.

Well that doesn't help much. What does the quote mean? If it means serpents would crawl on their bellies their whole lives then isn't that what they were doing anyway?

PTET

The general sentiment round here, Mike, is indeed that Genesis is "fiction". That's because all of the evidence - except to those who insist it is inerrant no matter what - is that it is fiction. Not in the "Harry Potter" sense - but in the mythology-derived-from-earlier-related-cultures-which-developed-over-centuries sense.

The important thing for you to remember is that a great many Christians - and the majority of scientists who are Christians - are quite happy with that, even if they think that Genesis is special and above all other myths, and/or that the Bible is "divinely inspired".

The sad fact, Mike(ATL), is how Christian Fundamentalists are prepared to lie about that in order to fool themselves and the unwary into believing the "Truth" of the Bible over the evidence that God, if there is a God, left for us to find.

Your honesty is greatly appreciated, and I for one won't let anyone give you a hard time for it - unless of course you come back trying to argue the same uninformed opinions...

All the best

PTET

Hawkingfan

I forgot this one. But I only need quote the following scriptures:
Genesis 4
16 So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

Genesis 18
20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

And wasn't god supposed to "dwell" in the Most Holy Place of the Tabernacle?

EGGO

Who was it that said that when we used the term "days" it actually meant "many many years" because that seems like a day to God...because I found a christian site that shows (in my opinion proves) that saying "day" was the literal 24 hour "night to light" day.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c002.html

Biff the unclean

Looks like I missed a good thread.
Since there have been a number of Biff said this and that, what Biff actually did say was that the account of the "Fall of Man" shows itself to be pure fiction which means that there was no historic fall. With no fall there is no need for Jesus to "save" us, he becomes superfluous. The claims that someone said that the whole bible was fiction was an over reaction to that

Adora

Wow, I've never had an opposition bail on me. Your honesty and integrity is refreshing Mike. I respect you in a way I have never before respected a Christian who is into the Bible as much as you seem to be. *tips her hat and bows* My best wishes for your further investigation of your faith.

Mike(ATL)

Thanks all, I appreciate all the appreciation. Although I find it kind of funny that I seem to get a lot more respect for not knowing something than for knowing something

Does not knowing the details of some of the science mean I haven't researched my "religion?" If I'm not allowed to tell others about the Gospel until I have attained a working knowledge of everything I'm in trouble. I would suggest that under the same standards you keep to yourself about your atheism since I would assume that you also do not have a working knowledge of everything.

I'll keep that in mind, don't be afraid to ask questions of us as well. I gots all kinds of knowledge up in here.

It reads to me like the first chapter and the very beginning of the second describe the process and the rest of the second fills in some details more focused on what happened with man in the garden. Let me give some examples of what I mean:

Genesis 2:1-4
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.
2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.
5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

Maybe Chapter 1 would be better suited to end at verse 4 of Chapter 2. See how the author kind of wraps up the "account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." He then goes on to talk about the field, how man was created, the specifics of the garden and what man did there. Maybe words like "now" and "then" that start some of these verses lead to some confusion in our translation. Why would the author say something about creation and then obviously contradict himself right after, it doesn't make sense. That kind of "contradiction" could be caught by any elementary writer. In other words, it seems the account stops becoming chronological at Chapter 2, verse 5.

By going against God they were by definition doing something evil. They did know that they were not to eat the fruit of that tree. It's my interpretation that there were not any magical properties of knowing good and evil in that tree. Simply by going against God they became ashamed. There was nothing to be ashamed of until they went against God. They did not know evil until it existed and it didn't exist until they went against God. It's really interesting when you think about it.

How can an omnipotent being dwell in a singular place. God in a sense dwells everywhere. I don't see the contradiction in God choosing to "dwell" as we see it in the tabernacle and God being able to exist without a place to "dwell." He is not a physical presence that needs a dwelling place. I prefer to think along the lines of another dimension but we won't get into that.

DrJim

Mike (ATL) says: I don't suspect Mike(ATL) and I would agree on too much about the bible, but here is a passage from 1 Kings 8 which shows his gneral understanding of "dwell" in these kind of cotexts is pretty ancient:

The scene is Solomon's dedication of the temple: the cloud of divine glory has just chased the priests out of the sanctuary:

vv. 12-13 Then Solomon said, "The LORD has set the sun in the heavens, but has said that he would dwell in thick darkness. I
have built thee an exalted house, a place for thee to
dwell in for ever." .
...
v. 27 "But will God indeed dwell
on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven
cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I
have built!

He "dwells" in the sense that it is a place in which he is particularly manifested, yet he is still transcendent. His dwelling is very often interpreted as a place for God's "name" to avoid implying limitations on God's omnipresence and omnipotence.

JRL.

Doctor X

If you preach your "religion" as science, then affirmative.

Rather a working knowledge of said gospel and the text it is presumably based upon would prove advantageous.

Save that said "you" has a far better understanding of the biblical texts and science; thus, "you" is able to opine responsibly.

--J.D.