IvanK

Any evidence by way of reference for the idea that the Gen 1 creation was of "essence" and not of substance or is that something out of your own head?

In Gen 1 (KJV) the Earth brings forth plants on the third day and human beings, male and female, are "created" on the sixth day. In Gen 2 man, alone, is "formed" before there are any plants (or any rain to sustain plants) on Earth. Also in Gen 1 the creation takes six days plus one day of rest; Gen 2 speaks of "the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens."

So we have here at least three contradictions to deal with:

1. Regarding the order in which various material things were created;

2. Regarding the time taken to create the material things; and

3. Regarding the creation of human beings, male and female at the same time or male first and female afterwards.

One can, as you do so well, play with the common meanings of words (things might be able to be "created" without being "formed," for instance) in order to assert that there are no actual contraditions between Gen 1 and Gen 2. I merely note here that not even the most devout Biblical scholars would take that argument seriously.

The most efficient, reasonable and logical explanation for the discrepancies is that there are two competing creation stories, both so well known that either could not have been left out of the Mosaic texts either when they were originally written or when they were edited together into a single book, and either the obvious contradictions between the two were held to be unimportant or that neither story was taken literally enough to make any contradictions important to the writer, the editor or the reader.

I'd have a great deal more respect for someone who argued that the obvious contradictions between Gen 1 and Gen 2 obscure some deeper, hidden, mystical or supernatural truth than I would for someone who attempts to argue them away with the kind of obscurantist handwaving you so typically employ.

Amos

But that is oyur choice Ivan and I never expect you to believe me. I just present it as an alternative.

IvanK

So you worship an androgynous God and some other being called LORD God, one or the other or both of whom can bring things into being without creating or forming them in any way. I'll say this much, it's really entertaining. But y'know, it's easier to just be an atheist, there's so much less to remember or worry your pretty little head over. And you'd have a lot more success converting people to your point of view, if that's part of your goal with your interminably odd posts, if you picked a religion that might be professed in simple non-self-contradictory declarative English sentences.

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: IvanK ]</p>

beachbum

I like the one where Jesus dies on the cross and is laid out in a tomb

Three days later they roll away the stone, Jesus walks out and if he sees his shadow there will be six more weeks of bad weather.