cpickett

First of all, your explanation doesn't make sense. You yourself basically said it was written from God's perspective, and it's 3rd person, which means that it is impossible for it to be from Adam's perspective. Your explanation, while very impressive, lets you think the bible doens't contradict itself, but quite frankly it doesn't "hold water".

As far as the "childish" counter, this thread could be very long, and we will lose track. I was just trying to keep that from happening.

Second of all, God does not have a corporeal form, would it be logically possible for him to be a day-glo God? Did God turn himself off at night? Does God have a clapper?

I think that various celestial objects, emit photons, and hence we see light. Our sun is artificial?

Calzaer

How can it be from Adam's perspective if Moses took dictation directly from God?

Honestly, if you're going to pretend to be a Protestant, you really need to toss all this "oral tradition" crap out and get back in line with the Sola Scriptura philosophy that ended up being the breaking point between y'all and Catholocism in the first place. ONLY the Bible. The Bible, written by GOD (who doesn't make or allow typos) comes complete with ALL the information we need to understand God. If you have to go outside the Bible to find out what it "really means", you're not a protestant, you're a hypocritical Catholic.

mike_decock

Yes it did .

You're explanation didn't explain the discrepancy. Don't worry, it's not your fault if you can't explain away what can't be explained away. I grasped your concept and truth is still obvious: Gen. 2 contradicts Gen. 1.

LOL . Lets heap assertions on top of the flaws to bury the truth, huh?

I like the explanation. It gave me a good laugh. The SAB still won - grow up.

LOL LOL . That one's even funnier .

Assertions on top of assertions in an even more desperate attempt to bury the truth.

Thanks, Magus... I needed a good laugh.

-Mike...

BadBadBad

What about the plants Magus?

2:5
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

That says plants didn't exist until God caused rain and created man to till the soil. Chapter one says plants were first. What's your explanation for that? Adam was created by God and placed into the Garden of Eden. He saw one of two things.

1. He saw plants when he opened his eyes. Then Adam's perspective would contradict with 2:5. Exactly which verse do we switch from Moses perspective to Adam's perspective? Oh, and you never mentioned at which verse we switch back either. I'm still curious.

2. He saw no plants. Then he sees in 2:9 God form plants out of the ground. So from the perspective of 2:5 and Adam, man was first then plants. That contradicts with Genesis 1. You're only saving grace here is that perhaps God played a little game and created plants everywhere else except the Garden of Eden, which he created as a wasteland. Even here, Genesis 2 isn't a summary of Genesis. If this was the case, it is a false rendition of the creation of the earth. It still therefore conflicts with Genesis 1.

It's not just that we don't like your explanations. The question is whether your explanations make any sense at all, and further are they actually true? I don't think you've made any case at all for either.

Jabu Khan

Sorry ti intrude but back to the no hebrew word for sphere thing that might hold up if the edges of the earth and the corners weren't also discussed in the bible also, the bible tells us that the earth rests on pillars.

BadBadBad

I got this out of Magus in another thread:




So now Magus, explain to us how 2:5 fits with plants being created first. Gen 2:5 says there was a time when no plants existed, and it tells us why. God hadn't caused it to rain, and he hadn't created Adam to till the soil. Then two verses later, he creates Adam, and you claim plants already existed. Did you say something about needing proof today Magus? How does 2:5 fit with Genesis 1 or Adam's perspective assuming you're correct and Genesis 1 is the accurate account of creation?

Magus55

What do you mean? Read Gen 2:5 again.

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth

It means God created mature plants already planted in the ground before water or tilling of seeds ever took place. This is just another example of God creating already mature things ( animals, plants, humans were all full grown at creation).

MrDarwin

I can't believe nobody has brought up the Judas contradictions yet--although given the previous performance by Vanderzyden, it's clear that a dedicated apologist can rationalize absolutely anything.

BadBadBad

Let's read this in context. Verses 2:1-3 finish up the creation of the universe from chapter 1. God finished, God rested, and God sanctified the seventh day. Now, we start all over in verse 4. These two verses make up one sentence, so let's read the whole thing.

2:4-5
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

I read this to say that these are the generations when God created the Earth and heavens. These are the generations before every plant and herb of the field were in the Earth. These are the generations when there were no plants "for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." In other words, man was created first then plants.

I don't read it that way because I have a point to make. The authors of SAB obviously read it that way too. So, I'm not alone. It's a poorly written sentence in English, so I can understand how you might read it differently.

Do you read it like this? In the day that God created heaven and earth. AND in the day that God created plants. A time some time before God put them in the earth? In one day, God created heaven, earth, plants and herbs, but he didn't plant them in the Earth. This all happened in one day? That's a summary of what happened in Genesis 1? What about the "for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground?" Why is that in there? I think Magus that you have to skip quite a few words in this poorly written God inspired sentence to reach the meaning you claim.

Don't let me put words into your mouth. Let us know word for word how you come to your interpretation, and be sure to use all the words in this sentence. Also I'd still like an answer as to when Genesis stops being Adam's perspective and when it reverts back to Moses' perspective. Also, your explanation being possible is not enough, how about give us some proof that it's in fact actually true. Otherwise I think it's safe for us, in the face of this supernatural nonsense and contradictions, to presume it's false.

Are we going to get to the rest of the contradictions SAB lists for Genesis 1 and 2, or do we have to stick with your blanket statement that it's all bogus?

Magus55

Ok, did some studying on to this issue. You have to put Gen 2:4-5 in context with following verses and it makes more sense.

Lets use NIV because i think it makes it more clear than KJV.

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [2] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [3] and there was no man to work the ground,

In my previous post i thought it meant plants were already in the earth, but they weren't. KJV translation makes it a little misleading.

So in the above quote it states When God made the heavens and the Earth, there were no plants because there wasn't any water. Now lets look at Gen 2:6-8.

6 but streams [4] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man [5] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

Ok, at first glance it looks like Adam was made before the garden, because the mention of Adam is in Gen 2:7. But look at Gen 2:8, its in past tense...

Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. Its saying God planted the garden, and then after he had planted it, He placed the man that he then had formed ( after the plants), into the Garden. Gen 2:8 is the past tense. If you were to put Gen 2:8 in present tense, it would go between Gen 2:6 and 2:7.

So in common english, the way i would read it is.

This is the account of God's creation. In the day (past history) that God created the Heavens and the Earth, there was no plants in the ground because God hadn't created water yet. Then God created streams and watered the ground. God created man out of dust and breathed life into him. God had already planted a garden in the East, in Eden, and placed the man that he formed (just created) in that garden, that he created after He watered the grounds.

Now why is the Garden mentioned in the past tense after the mention of man from dust, instead of just saying and God put a garden on the watered ground in the East, and then formed man and put him in the garden? I don't know. I think a large part of why its misleading and different english is due to the translation. In its original Hebrew, it probably made perfect sense based on Hebrew grammar. Trying to translate 4000 year old Hebrew into 17th Century english is bound to skew the meaning some. Nobody claims the translations are innerant, or perfectly written. Yes they have been found to have the least amount of copying/translation errors of any book in history, but its not perfect. The original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are.

It just takes stepping back and looking at the whole picture, and noticing the use of tenses. It isn't a contradiction, just a somewhat confusing use of grammar based on translation.