For part 1 of this discussion go to:
Could I just ask you, where did you get all your information from, is it from Skeptical Inquirer web page? Some of this sounds very familiar to me.
Defend the word previously [Answer: How do you prove what was manufactured and what is real?]
misunderstoodranter With bible – you can’t and that is my point, it had many authors – they are all dead, and it makes some pretty tall claims about parting of seas etc. Which you call historic – the thing is, cannon fire is a historic event also – I know it happened, because we have the cannons, and we have made modern versions and fired them – so cannon fire is real, and the accounts of it being used in war are likely to be true as well – that is evidence in action.
Defend the word previously [Answer: I should not ask, but can’t help, are you serious about this? I don’t believe for one moment that you would not think of an excuse to wriggle out of that commitment even if I somehow managed to make an exact replication of your demand.]
misunderstoodranter Yes – I am deadly serious, perhaps god sent me to you in my search… perhaps, you are the person that will guide me to god. I don’t know if god exists, but that doesn’t stop me looking for him / it.
[1) If the prophecy is vague, unclear or garbled like Nostodarmous or a horoscope – this does not count. It must be detailed in meaning and language.
Defend the word previously Answer: Since the Bible is the final authority, not me, I’ll let the Bible talk about the issue of prophecy.
A.) There are false prophets who will be able to trick people into believing them
B.) There are true prophets. You need an understanding of Biblical principles of discernment to understand this. This is not hidden but you have to refer to the Bible.
Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruits, nor can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bring forth good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you shall know them. 21 Not everyone who says to Me, Lord! Lord! shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name, and through Your name throw out demons, and through Your name do many wonderful works? 23 And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness!
Matthew 24: 24-25 24 For false Christ’s and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.]
misunderstoodranter You see here you have not provided an answer – I was hoping that someone with your knowledge of the bible could point me to a prophecy within it, that will fulfil my criteria.
Defend the word: I did include a link to the post I alluded to but you didn’t look at it. Here is the list, but note that this is not a complete list.
|Concerning his birth||Prophesied||Fulfilled|
|1. Born of the seed of woman||Gen 3:15||Gal 4:4|
|2. Born of a virgin||Isa 7:14||Mt 1:18-25|
|3. Seed of Abraham||Gen 22:18||Mt 1:1|
|4. Seed of Isaac||Gen 21:12||Lk 3:23+34|
|5. Seed of Jacob||Num 24:17||Lk 3:34|
|6. Seed of David||Jer 23:5||Lk 3:31|
|7. Tribe of Judah||Gen 49:10||Rev 5:5|
|8. Family line of Jesse||Isa 11:1||Lk 3:32|
|9. Born in Bethlehem||Mic 5:2||Mt 2:1-6|
|10. Herod kills the children||Jer 31:15||Mt 2:16-18|
Concerning his nature
|11. He pre-existed creation||Mic 5:2||1 Pet 1:20|
|12. He shall be called Lord||Ps 110:1||Acts 2:36|
|13. Called Immanuel (God with us)||Isa 7:14||Mt 1:22-23|
|14. Prophet||Deut 18:18-19||Acts 3:18-25|
|15. Priest||Ps 110:4||Heb 5:5-6|
|16. Judge||Isa 33:22||Jn 5:22-23|
|17. King||Ps 2:6||Jn 18:33-37|
|18. Anointed by the Spirit||Isa 11:2||Mt 3:16-17|
|19. His zeal for God||Ps 69:9||Jn 2:15-17|
Concerning his ministry
|20. Preceded by a messenger||Isa 40:3||Mt 3:1-3|
|21. To begin in Galilee||Isa 9:1-2||Mt 4:12-17|
|22. Ministry of Miracles||Isa 35:5-6||Mt 9:35;11:4|
|23. Teacher of parables||Ps 78:1-4||Mt 13:34-35|
|24. He was to enter the temple||Mal 3:1||Mt 21:10-12|
|25. Enter Jerusalem on donkey||Zech 9:9||Mt 21:1-7|
|26. Stone of stumbling to Jews||Isa 28:16; Ps 118:22||1 Pet 2:6-8|
|27. Light to Gentiles||Isa 49:6||Acts 13:46-48|
The day Jesus was crucified
|28. Betrayed by a friend||Ps 41:9||Jn 13:18-27|
|29. Sold for 30 pieces of silver||Zech 11:12||Mt 26:14-15|
|30. 30 pieces thrown in Temple||Zech 11:13||Mt 27:3-5|
|31. 30 pieces buys potters field||Zech 11:13||Mt 27:6-10|
|32. Forsaken by His disciples||Zech 13:7||Mk 14:27+50|
|33. Accused by false witnesses||Ps 35:11+20-21||Mt 26:59-61|
|34. Silent before accusers||Isa 53:7||Mt 27:12-14|
|35. Wounded and bruised||Isa 53:4-6||1 Pet 2:21-25|
|36. Beaten and spit upon||Isa 50:6||Mt 26:67-68|
|37. Mocked||Ps 22:6-8||Mt 27:27-31|
|38. Fell under the cross||Ps 109:24-25||Jn 19:17; Lk23:26|
|39. Hands and feet pierced||Ps 22:16||Jn 20:24-28|
|40. Crucified with thieves||Isa 53:12||Mt 27:38|
|41. Prayed for enemies||Isa 53:12||Lk 23:34|
|42. Rejected by His own people||Isa 53:3||Jn 19:14-15|
|43. Hated without cause||Ps 69:4||Jn 15:25|
|44. Friends stood aloof||Ps 38:11||Lk22:54;23:49|
|45. People wag their heads||Ps 22:7;109:25||Mt 27:39|
|46. People stared at Him||Ps 22:17||Lk 23:35|
|47. Cloths divided and gambled for||Ps 22:18||Jn 19:23-24|
|48. Became very thirsty||Ps 22:15||Jn 19:28|
|49. Gall and vinegar offered Him||Ps 69:21||Mt 27:34|
|50. His forsaken cry||Ps 22:1||Mt 27:46|
|51. Committed Himself to God||Ps 31:5||Lk 23:46|
|52. Bones not broken||Ps 34:20||Jn 19:32-36|
|53. Heart broken||Ps 69:20;22:14||Jn 19:34|
|54. His side pierced||Zech 12:10||Jn 19:34+37|
|55. Darkness over the land||Amos 8:9||Lk 23:44-45|
|56. Buried in rich man’s tomb||Isa 53:9||Mt 27:57-60|
His Resurrection & Ascension
|57. Raised from the dead||Ps 16:8-11||Acts 2:24-31|
|58. Begotten as Son of God||Ps 2:7||Acts 13:32-35|
|59. Ascended to God||Ps 68:18||Eph 2:8-10|
|60. Seated beside God||Ps 110:1||Heb 1:3+13|
Defend the word previously [Answer: I love that you give this example. This is brilliant as it shows how little atheists understand when such rules are applied.]
misunderstoodranter We will see about that.
Defend the word previously a.) Israel was without a homeland for almost 2000 years
misunderstoodranter [I agree]
Defend the word previously b.) The fact is the UN agreed that Israel should have a homeland which is a miracle in itself.
misunderstoodranter [Disagree – the UN is supporting a race of people in finding a place to live, that is the UN’s job – it has to be sympathetic to the belief of a religion of course – but it doesn’t mean it is a miracle – it is human intervention – doubtless there are people in Iraq who think our intervention is a miracle – furthermore it is not a prophecy either, as the bible wrote about it and people followed what it said – it is no more a prophecy than me having to go to work tomorrow is.]
Defend the word: Answer / Do you know when the UN was created? I would argue that the dates and objectives given to this organisation have been governed by God’s timing, but then I do acknowledge that we could be sceptical about my assertion.
The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and the achieving of world peace. The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue. It contains multiple subsidiary organizations to carry out its missions.
Israel became a state on May 15, 1948, and was recognised by the United States and the Soviet Union that same day.
Defend the word previously c.) Israel was nearly annihilated on several occasions throughout its history; this proves first the opposition to God that exists in this world and is an attempt to destroy God’s promises to Abraham.
misunderstoodranter [That will be religion causing those wars – you deny ever happened]
Defend the word answer: Have you not read any of my previous replies? I have never claimed such a thing! What I said was that our human nature is responsible and it is not God’s doing.
Defend the word previously d.) The fact that Israel has been preserved proves that God is faithful
misunderstoodranter [No it doesn’t prove anything – by this logic, you are saying that the fact that a religious meaning is applied to a situation it must be true – so is this also true of the twin towers, which were also blown up in gods name?]
Defend the Word answer: There is no prophesy that says the twin towers will fall and be destroyed (except in Bible code which we both dismissed). There are however prophesises about Israel’s preservation so your logic just does not add up.
Defend the word previously e.) Nazis and the British did not make it easy for Israel to return to their homeland, if you remember from our recent history, ships loaded with Jews heading for Palestine were forbidden to dock in Israel by the then British rulers.
misunderstoodranter [Yes because we were trying to stop a war]
Defend the word answer: Actually we in Britain did our best to pass the buck to the UN as soon as it was possible. What is interesting is that Jews and the British did fight shoulder to shoulder against the Nazis so I guess we can say that some training may have been provided, but overall all the work of self preservation was the sole responsibility of the Jews.
Defend the word previously f.) It took the death of 6 million Jews for the world to allow the creation of Israel
misunderstoodranter [Guilt left over from the war – and possibly an acceptance by the international community that something had to change – the public understands that if you allow persecution, you might find that one day it is your race that ends up persecuted – this is right from wrong, and is not proof of divine intervention – however there is plenty of proof that other countries intervened in Hitler because he was a fascist dictator and we and the rest of the world didn’t want to speak German – little was known about the horrors of Hitler until after the war – and many world leaders met with him and had lunch before the fighting started].
Defend the word answer You continue to surprise me as one moment you give very insightful and highly intelligent answers then the next moment you come up with ideas that just don’t make sense. You are truly a very complicated person but aren’t we all?
- We knew what was going on as we had spies there
- There had been a number of destructions and homelands destroyed
- I doubt we in Britain have anything to worry about; we have dominated much of the world for a very long time. Remember the British Empire?
- Social responsibility and liberalism which existed for some time before. However, it was fully established as an ideology only after World War II
misunderstoodranter [I am not cheapening anything – saying that god intervened cheapens the achievement – not that I regard war as an achievement under any circumstances. Also your statement that the UK and the US did not support the war is not true – we did, we provided tactical support – and although we did not admit our direct involvement – it is highly likely that we supplied arms, and financial aid – we had no option to do this because the Russians were supporting the Arab states, if this had escalated it could have sparked world war three – aka thermonuclear war. Please have some perspective.]
Defend the word answer: Much has been written about this and many documentaries have been compiled but what we know is that more could have been done. If you study the six day war you will find that the Jewish authorities had predicted what would happen. Arab armies from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon tried to invade Palestine as soon as the British forces actually left.
Also see more information on The Six-Day War of June 5-10, 1967. It was a war between the Israeli army and the armies of the neighbouring states of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. The Arab states of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria also contributed troops and arms. At the war’s end, Israel had gained control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The results of the war affect the geopolitics of the region to this day.
Defend the word previously [Apostles could not artificially manufacture the birth place of Jesus.]
misunderstoodranter Really so they knew about this before Jesus was born? News to me.
Well here is some more news then
The Coming Messiah
Micah 5:2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
[c.) He was hung on a cross. This kind of execution did not exist when this was prophesied.]
misunderstoodranter You have to be joking Crucifixion is literally ancient, the Persians used it… before the man made cross people nailed others to trees – this is O-Level History.
Defend the word answer: I guess I should have clarified that the time period in which the prophet wrote was some time even before the punishment by hanging as crucifixion was introduced. The location of the writing and the knowledge of the author also play a significant part in this argument i.e. This form of execution was not known in Israel and at the time of prophecy, not known by the prophet. This form of punishment was introduced in Israel during the time of Alexander the Great. This period is between two testaments so prophecies in the Old Testament predate this by some significant time. It seems amazing that this prediction about Christ’s crucifixion was made before Israel had known about such form of punishment and had no reason to believe at that time that it would be carried out in Israel some hundreds of years later.
Crucifixion Time: The method of capital punishment among the Persians, Seleucids, Jews, Carthaginians, and Romans occurred from about the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD.
Defend the word previously [d.) If you read Isaiah 53 you will find that Jesus was not looked at with favour, his face was distorted due to beatings and he was killed for our sins. The fact is this happened on Passover and this is the holiday that symbolises the redemption of Israel. You will find more of such precise details, not wishy washy stuff as you suggest.]
misunderstoodranter This is not a prophecy – a prophecy, is me saying that the sun will not rise tomorrow and the world will stay dark for 10 days – and then it actually happens – describing an event after the event has happened is not a prophecy it is an account / or a story.
Defend the word answer: You are missing the point here. Your assertion that this is just a story is wrong, things have been predicted and fulfilled in Jesus. This is not too complicated to understand.
Defend the word previously [a.) You demand proof. You and I are creatures and don’t have rights that we can demand, we have rights that we are given. However, there is plenty of evidence of both God’s existence and his involvement in his creation.]
misunderstoodranter Yep – I do demand proof, so what.
Defend the word answer: Our perspectives are different as what satisfies you may not be the requirement that God puts on us. Therefore your demand for proof are not prerequisites for faith, but what you show is a desire to disprove, eliminate and come to a certain conclusion. This is how we work out things in science but is not how faith is developed. Usually faith is rewarded in the Bible by revelation. This does not mean that we blindly believe in anything. On the contrary. But it does mean that where sufficient evidence is available we are right to put our trust in God’s word.
Defend the word previously [b.) Your proof would have confused the hearers of the time and would serve no purpose other than to convince future generations. This could have been a significant problem for many millions who lived before the time this scientific discovery would have been made. And God is not a God of confusion.]
misunderstoodranter And convincing future generations would not be useful? Just think of the wars it would have prevented – it wouldn’t have had to have been a highly technical thing – just stating that the world is a sphere would have been enough – or describing basic anatomy of the heart, brain or eye. I am sure a supreme being all knowledgeable and the like would be capable of writing something in the bible that was easy to understand. Also your statement does not explain the things in the bible that confuse people today – there is plenty in the bible that doesn’t make sense or serves no purpose other than to confuse or mystify.
Defend the word answer: This is only true if you are taking it out of context, I have yet to find anything that is not in accordance with my understanding of logic and reason.
Defend the word previously[c.) Christianity, and the Bible in particular, is not a scientific handbook, despite the popular belief that it is. It deals with the salvation of humankind but if you want an intriguing fact, the Bible does say that the Earth is hung on nothing in the book of Job.]
misunderstoodranter Hmmm – ok so explain this then:
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” (This is a song, and we use parabolas in songs even today.)
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …” (This is a song, and we use parabolas in songs even today.)
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable …”(This is a song, and we use parabolas in songs even today.)
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.” (This is a song, and we use parabolas in songs even today.)
Isaiah 45:18: “…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…” (What is wrong with this one, fixed does not mean unmovable always????)
Job 26:7: “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing”
Defend the word answer: Job 26:27 is a proof, not the other way around. If I was you I would be on my knees; this is precisely what you were asking me to provide you with.
misunderstoodranter Doesn’t sound anything like the earth moving through space as it does – it revolves around the sun – perhaps this is why Galileo was persecuted – because the church believed the book to be true – and he was saying that it was wrong.
Defend the word answer: As early humans who predate our understanding of science they can see that the earth was not shaky, therefore they are spot on. As for the interpretation, hindsight is a wonderful thing and should not be used against people who did not know any better. Who knows if you lived in the Middle Ages, you could have been a Roman Catholic Bishop that perpetrated these deeds.
Defend the word previously [The Bible indicates that the earth is round. Consider Isaiah 40:22 which mentions the “circle of the earth.” This description is certainly fitting—particularly when the earth is viewed from space; the earth always appears as a circle since it is round.]
misunderstoodranter [Actually the earth is a ellipsoid – a closer description would be that it is a sphere or a ball – a circle is a two dimensional thing or a disk – or flat.]
Defend the word answer: Talk about nit picking and trying to find anything that will destroy the credibility of the Bible. However, note that this is being cynical and going too far. From where I stand, looking at the Bible not as a scientific handbook and based on the limited or no information that was available, as far as I’m aware, to the writers of the Bible they get 10 out of 10 from me. Your avoidance of the obvious only serves to demonstrate that a lack of understanding coupled with a desire to win the argument will drive people away from the obvious to the implausible. Just look at the NASA pictures and wonder about God’s greatness and foresight.
Work by Physicist Dr lisle not Defend the word own work [The laws of nature are consistent and logical, because the Creator is consistent and logical. We can trust that the same physics which worked yesterday will also work today. This principle is foundational to the scientific process.]
misunderstoodranter Actually – you are wrong here – ever heard of the Pioneer Probes? Yup two probes sent out of the solar system – and guess what, both of the probes are drifting off their predicted course – according to Newton, this shouldn’t happen. This is so far unexplained – however, one explanation is that gravity does not operate in the same way everywhere – but it will be a while before we find out the truth behind this mystery. Some scientists also debate whether the speed of light is constant throughout the universe – it may not be, which is also an interesting concept – unlike scripture science doesn’t blind people, it is not set in stone, and can be challenged.
Defend the word answer: Thank you for your science lesson too. This issue of speed of light actually can serve creationists very well. I am very well aware of this fact. One of the strongest arguments that exist against a young earth is the speed of light plus the distances in space we have. So if you will so kindly remove this barrier for us then there is no reason to take the view that the earth is billions of years old.
On the issue of objects moving away from the gravitational pull is not new either. We know that this is what happens with our moon too so I’m a bit lost with what you mean. If you spin a heavy object you will create a wobble and sometimes this will result in things moving away from the object that holds it. This is not new either, so what are you trying to say? Could you clarify please?
misunderstoodranter As for Hubble’s law – well thanks for the science lesson but actually I prefer to credit Vesto Melvin Slipher with the discovery of red shift.
Defend the word answer: And here is another history lesson on science for us all to discover: The history of the subject began with the development in the 19th century of wave mechanics and the exploration of phenomena associated with the Doppler effect. The effect is named after Christian Andreas Doppler, who offered the first known physical explanation for the phenomenon in 1842.The hypothesis was tested and confirmed for sound waves by the Dutch scientist Christoph Hendrik Diederik Buys Ballot in 1845. Doppler correctly predicted that the phenomenon should apply to all waves, and in particular suggested that the varying colours of stars could be attributed to their motion with respect to the Earth. While this attribution turned out to be incorrect (stellar colours are indicators of a star’s temperature, not motion), Doppler would later be vindicated by verified red-shift observations.
The first Doppler red-shift was described in 1848 by French physicist Armand-Hippolyte-Louis Fizeau, who pointed to the shift in spectral lines seen in stars as being due to the Doppler effect. The effect is sometimes called the “Doppler-Fizeau effect”. In 1868, British astronomer William Huggins was the first to determine the velocity of a star moving away from the Earth by this method. In 1871, optical redshift was confirmed when the phenomenon was observed in Fraunhofer lines using solar rotation, about 0.1 Å in the red. In 1901 Aristarkh Belopolsky verified optical redshift in the laboratory using a system of rotating mirrors. The earliest occurrence of the term “red-shift” in print (in this hyphenated form), appears to be by American astronomer Walter S. Adams in 1908, where he mentions “Two methods of investigating that nature of the nebular red-shift”. The word doesn’t appear unhyphenated, perhaps indicating a more common usage of its German equivalent, Rotverschiebung, until about 1934 by Willem de Sitter.
Beginning with observations in 1912, Vesto Slipher discovered that most spiral nebulae had considerable redshifts. Subsequently, Edwin Hubble discovered an approximate relationship between the redshift of such “nebulae” (now known to be galaxies in their own right) and the distance to them with the formulation of his eponymous Hubble’s law. These observations corroborated Alexander Friedman’s 1922 work, in which he derived the famous Friedmann equations. They are today considered strong evidence for an expanding universe and the Big Bang theory.
Defend the word previously [a.) If this was to be the case you would be dead too.]
misunderstoodranter Yeap – it is a miracle that I am not (pun totally intended)
Defend the word previously [Defend the word] b.) You misunderstand the meaning of miracle. By definition, this is something that happens rarely otherwise it will stop being a miracle by its own definition.]
misunderstoodranter Miracles are So rare in fact that no atheist has ever seen one – that’s rare. It is rare for people to fall out of aeroplanes, but it happens.
Defend the word answer: This is an assumption. There are many atheists who have become Christians and I haven’t talked to all of them but I’m guessing that there is a possibility that some would have been converted by the miracles that may have happened in their lives. However, you would reject their testimony as they have become unacceptable to you as some kind of weird Christians.
Defend the word previously [c.) Miracles have purpose. They are not simply a form of God’s exhibitionism which is very disrespectful both to God and to those who worship God.]
misunderstoodranter Then why do the miracles in the bible prove a exhibition of god – parting of the seas is a big statement – why not use some other more subtle form of miracle instead – why the big show in the bible?
Defend the word answer: Again you don’t make sense. If the nation is surrounded from all sides and the only way is through the sea then the logical place for God to take his people is by that route. This is not showing off, it’s protecting by supernatural means.
misunderstoodranter I have seen photos of Aliens and there space ships – I don’t believe them to be true photos because they are always grainy… if however, they were an event well recorded by reliable sources – I would believe that Aliens had visited earth… same principle… show me evidence real hard fact and I will believe – in 30+ years I have not seen a single miracle once, not one ever – and considering how many religious people there are in the world praying for miracles I find this slightly suspicious.
Defend the word answer:
- There are many Christians who do not believe in miracles as they believe that they may have been for a limited time only. i.e. Only during the time of Jesus and his disciples. So this should not stop you from believing in God, this is only an excuse in my opinion, a red herring as I keep on saying.
- Your concept of faith is different to what the Bible would class as faith, you don’t believe because you see it is the other way around.
- Faith is the prerequisite for anything to happen according to the Bible.
- What others will see may still stay hidden from you, even scientifically this has to be accepted as an option.
Defend the word previously [Answer:
a.) You could always use another explanation to rationalise this event so no I don’t agree.
b.) That is not how it works. The Bible specifically says “Seek and you will find”, not to expect and it will fall down from the sky.]
misunderstoodranter Funny – but when I say this to Christians who claim god spoke to them – they say nope it was god… errm so it wasn’t your imagination… or the LSD that had polluted the water supply…. nope definitely god.
However, reverse the argument to prove the existence of god to a non believer, and it wouldn’t be acceptable to you – why is this? Surely if god had spoken to me I would know about it… after all this is god – you know the supreme being – who has absolute power over everything.
As for seeking – I am seeking – that is why I haunt your blog. So far no god has revealed himself to me…. if he had I wouldn’t be here – I would be shaking your hand, and praying and singing in church on sundays.
Defend the word answer: Are you sure about this? Somehow from reading others people’s blogs where you commented, it comes out significantly different to me. You continue to have strong statements, not questions which also dispels this notion for me personally.
Defend the word previously [Answer: Whilst there are a few issues with this, they are only very limited. First of all from your previous comments you claim that there are no aliens so this would be therefore a futile exercise.
a.) Aliens may not have succumbed to sin so no need to die again
b.) We don’t know if there are any aliens
c.) There would always be “plausible” explanations as to why they had an identical story, something about DNA or the same kind of evolution etc.]
misunderstoodranter Actually, I do not know if Aliens exist – I am only aware of one piece of evidence that counts as evidence – and that is the Wow signal that was captured by the Ohio State University’s Big Ear Telescope in August 1977. But since this observation was a one off – it could be a blip, so unless it happens again I have no way of knowing if it was Aliens or not – I hope that it was, just as I hope there is a god.
Defend the word previously [b.) We don’t know if there are any aliens]
misunderstoodranter Exactly – it is unknown, same with god.
Defend the word answer: Well finally you admit that it is unknown, this brings us closer to 50/50. So then, as it could be either way, now we are therefore a step closer to bringing you to a greater conviction of God’s existence albeit with more evidence and some faith.
Defend the word previously [c.) There would always be “plausible” explanations as to why they had an identical story, something about DNA or the same kind of evolution etc.]
misunderstoodranter Maybe – I like to think that it has yet to be decided whether DNA is a feature of the universe or just earth – again we do not know this yet, and until someone finds life on another world we will not have any evidence for DNA outside of earth.
Defend the word answer: Agree
misunderstoodranter [a) A genuinely flawless and consistent holy book – to meet this criteria, the text must be without error or self contradiction. A book of such perfection is humanly possible, so therefore it is not totally convincing, but it would non the less be impressive enough for me to have reasonable doubt in my atheism.
Defend the word previously Answer: Look at the Bible closely and you will find that it meets your criteria specifically.]
misunderstoodranter Ok – I have, Mark 16:17-18 (king James) says ” They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” Not exactly true is it. and…
Defend the word answer: If you carefully read any new translation you will find that there are footnotes that give a disclaimer about this particular text, by saying that most old manuscripts do not have this text. In other words, most Christians today accept that this was an addition or will view this with a great deal of scepticism. So this is not new to Christians and neither are they taken in by it. There is a very small group of people in USA (hillbillies), provincial people who practise this strange ritual but it is not endorsed by Christians everywhere. It is generally believed that this was taken from the story in the Book of Acts where the Apostle Paul was bitten by a snake and he shook it off. This was consequently added as the story seemed to come to an abrupt end.
misunderstoodranter how about these examples
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn’t created until the fourth day.
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.
misunderstoodranter Not exactly consistent is it – the trouble is religious people only see what they want to believe, start by not believing – it helps you be rational – then read the text – this gives you a less biased view and it is how the scientific method works – we scientists do not start with a theory that is fact, some proposes a hypothises, and we attempt to shoot it down in flames – after several hundred smart people have attempted to do this and failed (epically) then it is considered as having some sort of value – until that time it is considered an opinion or a nice idea or tripe.
Defend the word: Can I just ask a few questions:
- What kind of scientist are you, and how do you disprove God through your research?
- Our starting point may be on opposite sides but our methodology is not different. You aim to disprove, we aim to prove. The same logic can be applied when analysing any data. Both analyse data that contains statements and ideas as part of their teaching.
- Again you attempt to use standards that we apply in 21st century science to a book that was written many thousands of years ago and which does not make claims to be a scientific handbook. In the case of Genesis 1 and 2 it was probably written down on paper (papyrus) around 3400 years after Creation and before that it lived in the narratives that have been passed on from one generation to the next.
- I have included some rebuttals to your statements from a few other web pages as this will speed up the process for me but the idea is the same. One tells the story of general creation, the other is specific about the Garden of Eden, one is possibly literal (possibly chapter 1) and the other is topical. They complement each other and don’t contradict each other. The fact that they coexist in the same proximity points that there are no cover-ups with the Bible unlike many inventions that you will find elsewhere.
Information from other sources:
Are there contradictions between the first and second chapters of Genesis?
By Author: Russell Grigg, M.Sc. (Hons.), Creation Ex Nihilo Dec 93 – Feb 1994, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 38-41.
We’ve all heard the claims that there are many contradictions in Genesis. Many people, for instance, believe that there are inconsistencies between the creation accounts of Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2. So what about all of the supposed contradictions?
There are none!
If, with the NIV, we read “Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east…” (Genesis 2:8) and, ‘Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field…’ (Genesis 2:19 with emphasis added), it is clearly seen that chapter 2 states that the plants and animals were formed before Adam. When Adam named the animals (Genesis 2:20), they obviously were already in existence. There is no contradictory significance in the order of animals listed in Genesis 2:20; it is probably the order in which Adam met the animals, while the order of their creation is given in Genesis 1:20-25. Dr Henry Morris comments:
“It was only the animals in closest proximity and most likely as theoretical candidates for companionship to man that were actually brought to him. These included the birds of the air, the cattle (verse 20—probably the domesticated animals), and the beasts of the field, which were evidently the smaller wild animals that would live near human habitations. Those not included were the fish of the sea, the creeping things, and the beasts of the earth mentioned in Genesis 1:24, which presumably were those wild animals living at considerable distance from man and his cultivated fields.”
Concerning the names of geographical sites, we have no idea what the configuration of the land or the rivers was before the Flood, because the pre-Flood world was completely destroyed. The land areas and rivers named before the Flood do not correspond to similarly named features after the Flood.
The purpose of Genesis 2:18-25 is not to give another account of creation but to show that there was no kinship whatsoever between Adam and the animals. None was like him, and so none could provide fellowship or companionship for him. Why not? Because Adam had not evolved from them, but was ‘a living soul’ whom God had created ‘in His own image’ (Genesis 2:7 and 1:27). This means (among other things) that God created Adam to be a person whom He could address, and who could respond to and interact with Him. Here, as in many other places, the plain statements of the Bible confront and contradict the notion of human evolution.
There is therefore enough evidence for us to conclude that Adam most probably was the author of Genesis 2:4b-5:1, and that this is his record of his own experiences with respect to events in the Garden of Eden, the creation of Eve, the Fall, and in the lives of Cain, Abel, and Seth.
The next section is from 5:1b to 6:9a, and deals with the line from Adam to Noah, ending with, ‘These are the generations [or origins] of Noah.’
The next section is from 6:9b to 10:1a, and deals mainly with the Ark and the Flood, ending with, ‘Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.’ The wording of this subscript suggests that this portion was written by one of Noah’s sons, probably Shem, as Moses was descended from Shem. These chapters read very much like an eye-witness account because of the intimacy of detail which they contain. Consider Genesis 8:6-12 and note how this contains that ring of authenticity which is characteristic of an eye-witness account. It may even have been Shem’s diary!
Genesis 8:6-12 (KJV):
And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made: And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth. Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark. And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark; And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth. And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more.
Such meticulous details are the stuff of authentic eye-witness testimony.
There is thus a substantial body of evidence that these portions of Genesis were written by the persons named therein, for the purpose of making and passing on a permanent record.
So then, were these first 11 chapters written as a record of authentic historical facts?
Are there two creation accounts?
Taken from: http://www.tektonics.org/print.php4
The first two chapters of Genesis are regularly bashed on the noggin for being contrary to modern notions of science; but we won’t be discussing that here. Instead, we’re going to look at the issue of internal inconsistencies in the two so-called “creation accounts” — which actually split at verse 2:4; but for brevity we’ll refer to the accounts, respectively, as G1 and G2.
We will explore these areas:
- Are there actually two creation accounts?
- Do these two accounts contradict one another? In answer to this question, we will pursue these replies:
- Evidences of unity of authorship in the two accounts. Most cite contradiction in tandem with proofs that G1 and G2 were authored by different parties, in accord with the JEDP hypothesis. In response, it should be noted that it is certainly possible, if not very likely, that both G1 and G2 began as oral accounts that were later put into writing. We will argue that one author was responsible for both written accounts, whatever their original source may have been, thus indicating that any contradiction that would exist would have been intentional, and thus not problematic for inerrantists.
- Internal and grammatical solutions. We will show that even if two different people authored G1 and G2, they are not contradictory at all, but complementary.
A key operational question for this subject may come as a surprise: Are G1 and G2 actually creation accounts? G1 is undoubtedly so, but the classification of G2 is a bit more subtle, and affects somewhat our overall presentation.
The book of Genesis contains several sections that begin with the phrase which we sometimes render, “These are the generations of…” The word “generations” is the Hebrew toledot and has the connotation of a family history or succession. Toledot are given for Adam’s line (5:1-6:8), Noah (6:9-9:29), Noah’s sons (10:1-11:9), Shem (11:10-26), Terah and Abram (11:27-25:11), and so on — there are nearly a dozen recurrences of the toledot introduction and method, and one of these, interestingly enough, is Genesis 2:4-4:6.
What does this mean? It means that G2 is not actually a creation account as such, but a “family history” of the first men in creation [Mat.Gen126, 12ff]. It is therefore a point to begin our argument by noting that anyone who reads G2 as a rehash of the creation accounted in G1 is missing the boat from the start.
It is quite unlikely, given the parallel toledot structure, that the author of Genesis is repeating himself (although we do have examples of dual creation accounts — the former told generally, the latter told more specifically — in Sumerian and Babylonian literature). Rather, the indication would be that G2 is of an entirely different genre and approach than G1, and that any supposed contradiction between them needs to be understood in that light.
So G2 is not exactly a “creation account” to begin with; and this leads to the next question, of whether a single author is responsible for both. In that regard, the evidence indicates a very close unity between G1 and G2, one that indicates either a single redactor or, more likely, a single author. G1 and G2 are indeed linked by a detectable and obvious pattern:
- 1:1-2 Introduction
- 2:4-6 Introduction
- 1:3-5 Light/Darkness
- 2:7 Man/Dust
- 1:6-8 Firmament in Heaven
- 2:8 Garden on Earth
- 1:9-13 water and land, plants
- 2:9-15 plants, water and land
- 1:14-19 luminaries separated
- 2:16-17 two trees separated
- 1:20-3 first creation of animal life
- 2:18 first concern for man’s companionship
- 1:24-31 creation continues
- 2:19-22 concern continues
- 2:1-3, 2:23-4 internal patterns
- end of process
- divine involvement
- separation of Sabbath/separation of couples from parents
- blessing of Sabbath/unity of couple
Given these internal clues, we would argue that if any contradiction is found between G1 and G2, it is intentional — serving a rhetorical or polemical purpose — and therefore, of no consequence for any supposition of inerrancy. However, we find it more likely that no contradiction does exist between G1 and G2, and we shall see how this is so in our next section.
Points of Order
Typically, critics find two major points of disagreement between G1 and G2. The first of these is rather easy to dispose of:
Gen. 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen. 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.
The allegation is that whereas G1 has plants made before man, G2 has man made before plants. But it is really rather simple to see that G2 indicates no such thing as is claimed, for the latter specifies that what did not exist yet were plants and herbs “of the field” — what field?
The Hebrew word here is sadeh, and where it is used of known geographic locations, refers to either a quite limited area of land, and/or a flat place suitable for agriculture, as opposed to the word used in 1:11, “earth”, which is ‘erets — a word which has much broader geographic connotations.
See for example:
Gen. 23:12-13: “And he spake unto Ephron in the audience of the people of the land [‘erets], saying, But if thou wilt give it, I pray thee, hear me: I will give thee money for the field [sadeh]; take it of me, and I will bury my dead there.”
Ex. 9:22 “And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch forth thine hand toward heaven, that there may be hail in all the land [‘erets] of Egypt, upon man, and upon beast, and upon every herb of the field [sadeh], throughout the land [‘erets] of Egypt.”
Lev. 25:2-3, “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land [‘erets] which I give you, then shall the land [‘erets] keep a sabbath unto the LORD. Six years thou shalt sow thy field [sadeh], and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof…”)
A key to understanding what is being described here is that verse 2:5 goes on to explain WHY there were no “plants of the field” — because a) there was no rain upon the earth, and b) there was no man to work the earth — the two key elements for agriculture according to the ancient mindset. Thus, what this passage indicates is that there was as yet no organized agriculture, and that makes sense of the verses following, where God specifically plants the garden of Eden and places man to tend to it.
G2 is not indicating that there were no plants created yet at all, but that a special place was set aside for the foundation of agriculture and for plants “of the field” to be developed. (This idea of Eden as a special place set aside shall come into play as we progress.)
But now to the second alleged contradiction:
Gen. 1:24-5 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen. 2:18-20 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Problem? G1 says that animals were created before man; G2 says that man came first, there was a need to designate a helpmeet, then animals were created for the first time…or does it?
For quite some time now the classical solution to this problem has been to do what the NIV (but no other version that I know of) has done, and that is to render the verb in verse 2:19 not as simple past tense, but as a pluperfect, so:
Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.
Thus, it is asserted by various proponents, for example, from Leupold’s Exposition of Genesis:
Without any emphasis on the sequence of acts the account here records the making of the various creatures and the bringing of them to man. That in reality they had been made prior to the creation of man is so entirely apparent from chapter one as not to require explanation. But the reminder that God had “molded” them makes obvious His power to bring them to man and so is quite appropriately mentioned here. It would not, in our estimation, be wrong to translate yatsar as a pluperfect in this instance: ‘He had molded.’ The insistence of the critics upon a plain past is partly the result of the attempt to make chapters one and two clash at as many points as possible.
Likewise, others have noted that the very context of the passages indicate that the pluperfect should be used, and this was the simple solution which I offered in an initial analysis of this verse, in reply to claims of contradiction by Jim Merritt.
However, one critic cited Gensenius’ Hebrew Grammar and asserted that “such a reading is NOT POSSIBLE in the Hebrew since (starting after Gen. 2:4) the form of the narrative consists of a number of temporally consecutive clauses, linked by a special marker known as “WAW CONSECUTIVE”.
And what is this item? Citing “section 49a, note 1, page 133” of that grammar, they said:
“This name best expresses the prevailing syntactical relation, for by WAW CONSECUTIVE an action is always represented as the direct, or at least temporal CONSEQUENCE of a preceding action.”
Thus, they said, “the Genesis 2 narrative literally takes the form of a series of clauses WHICH OCCUR IN A TEMPORALLY ORDERED SEQUENCE” and because the “Hebrew syntax tells us that the actions performed in such a clause are ‘…the direct, or at least temporal consequence of a preceding action’, the only preceding action for which the creation of the beasts and birds can reasonably be considered ‘a direct consequence’ is God’s declaration that He will make a helper for ‘the man’. ” And that is that — or is it?
They have certainly reported the text of the grammar correctly, but the “waw consecutive” is rather a more complicated matter, for it does not ALWAYS indicate temporal sequence, as indeed the grammar indicates. There are examples in the OT, NT, and in Egyptian and Assyrian literature of “dischronologized” narratives where items are arranged topically rather than chronologically, and this would justify our own use of the pluperfect for the sake of context; indeed, even commentators that prefer to keep the simple past tense suppose not that there is a contradiction, but that G2 is reporting the order out of sequence purposely in order to stress man’s dominion over the created animals.
An older commentary by Keil and Delitsch made this point nicely:
The consecutive arrangement (in Gen. 2:19) may be explained on the supposition that the writer, who was about to describe the relation of man to the beast, went back to the creation, in the simple method of the early Semitic historian, and placed this first instead of making it subordinate; so that our modern style of expressing the same would be “God brought to Adam the beast which He had formed.”
A striking example of this style of narrative is in 1 Kings 7:13. The building and completion of the temple we noticed several times in chapter 6, and the last time in connection with the year and month, chapter 6:9,14,37,38. After that, the fact is stated that the royal palace was 13 years in building; and then it is related that Solomon fetched Hiram from Tyre, to make 2 pillars. If we are to understand the (WAW/VAV) consecutive here, Solomon would be made to send for the artist 13 years after the temple was finished. It only expresses the thought, “Hiram, whom Solomon fetched from Tyre. -Also note Judges 2:6.
More than this, there are also various “exceptions” which crop up in Hebrew grammar where the waw consecutive is used. Greenberg, citing the grammar of Jouon, notes [Gree.UE, 37, 168n] that the waw consecutive “sometimes occurs when there is no idea of succession” and that there are places where a pluperfect can be rendered in accordance with a summarizing or recapitulating use of the waw consecutive.
Collins [Coll.WAP] points out that there are cases of unmarked pluperfects in the OT, and that the specific verb in question in this verse itself often warrants a pluperfect translation. Furthermore, another contributor observed:
Gen. 2:19 begins with VaYYiTSeR; the verb “YaTSaR” in the imperfect with a WAW consecutive. Waltke and O’Connor (“Introduction to the Syntax of Biblical Hebrew”, pp. 544-546) say that “It (imperfect with a WAW consecutive) shows in Hebrew meanings equivalent to those of the suffix (perfect) conjugation.” Earlier, on p. 490, they had already shown that the suffix conjugation can have a pluperfect meaning; later, on p. 552, they show that the imperfect with a WAW consecutive can also have a pluperfect meaning, giving as examples “The Lord *had said* (Hebrew: VaYeDaBBeR) to Moses” (Num. 1:47-49) and “The Lord *had said* (Hebrew: VaYYoMeR) to Moses” (Ex. 4:18-19).
I have not been able to check the accuracy of this cite, but assuming it is true, we have now as many as four indications that the use of the waw consecutive in no way diminishes the argument for the use of the pluperfect. It remains untouched by the critic’s argument.
So the pluperfect is a more than acceptable reading; but since we are facing the sorts who believe that merely quoting versions is a way to prove that one is correct, and since most versions do use the simple past tense (although as we have noted, even commentators who use it do not necessarily agree that it constitutes actual contradiction), we had better have another line of defense — and indeed, there is another, one that relates back to our indication of the garden as a special sort of “domestic creation” for man to do his service in.
The naming of the animals was not simply a pre-Linnean classification exercise; it was a demonstration of Adam’s dominion over the entirety of nature. The giving of names, in ancient oriental thought, was an exercise of sovereignty and command. One may compare here the idea of bringing subjects before a sovereign, and this will come into play as we develop our argument that assumes reading “formed” as a simple past tense.
Now for recollection purposes, let’s once again quote the key passage:
Gen. 2:18-20 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Notice: God “formed” beasts and fowl here — but he brings before Adam beasts, fowl, and cattle — the domestic creatures! Where did they come from? The answer, under this proposition, is that they were already in Eden (a place of domestic specialty set aside), and that the “forming” of the beasts and fowl is an act of special creation, giving Adam “samples” of these beasts and fowls from outside Eden for the sake of presenting them to the earth’s appointed sovereign. (For after all, why should a king have to wait for his subjects to wander in when he can have them brought to him at once?)
In this passage the author clearly shows awareness of the cattle having already been created in G1, for he does not indicate their creation here, but rather assumes that they don’t need to be created. Even without the pluperfect rendering, G1 and G2 demonstrate a perfect consistency.
This explanation is also supported by the chiastic structure of the report of the animals: They are cited in the order, “beasts…fowl…cattle…fowl…beasts” — suggesting that the report is done by design, not because the writer couldn’t see contradiction so plainly in front of him.
- Gen. 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.; vs. 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
It is said: “In the first account Adam may eat from any fruit tree; while in the second he may not eat the fruit of all trees.”
However, the tree of knowledge is part of a garden not planted until Genesis 2:8. It did not exist at the time Gen. 1:29 is recorded; Gen. 2;17 is therefore updated instructions.
- Gen. 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.; and 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
It is argued that in the first case, man and woman were created together, while they were created separately in the second.
Once again it is simply a matter of establishing the chronology: the last phrase of Gen. 1:27 refers to an event that takes place chronologically much later than the first phrase. We need to keep in mind that we do indeed agree that there are two stories here; but they are complementary (just like dual creation accounts in other ancient sources), and each reflects an intact unit of oral tradition. It is only when we read them as logocentric moderns that we see a problem: The two stories originally were told independently.
- Gen. 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.; and 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
It is said that the first account gives men and women dominion, whereas in the second they were “confined” to Eden.
Where does it say that they were “confined” to Eden? All I see here is God getting the dominion process started easy with an initial parcel of land that is ready to go.
- Re the use of Elohim in the first account and Yahweh Elohim in the second: for the use of the word elohim, see here.
- Gen. 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen. 3:5, 22 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil…And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
It is objected that “In the first creation man is made in the image of God; while in the second that likeness is acquired by learning of good and evil.”
For an answer to this, see Chapter 1 of my book The Mormon Defenders. The second part does not say that this is how the “likeness” is acquired.
- Gen. 1:2, 9-10 And the earth was without form, and void…And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters…And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas.
Gen. 2:4-6 …in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens…for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth…there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
It is said: “In the first creation account the earth was first covered with water and land did not appear until later. In the second creation account there was no water at first. The earth was dry land and was later watered by a mist.”
But the second verse set does not say that “there was no water at first” at all. It says that there was no rain, which is not quite the same thing.
It is said, “Genesis 2:18 makes it plain that the animals had not been created yet since Adam is described as being alone.”
“Alone” simply means without a suitable helpmate, which is somewhat curious given that we have no textual justification for assuming that God had left the scene.
It is said, “Genesis chapter 1 states that creation took a full week – seven days, evening and morning. But the second creation story, beginning in 2:4, says this: ‘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.’ This verse says ‘In the day’ – that is, one day, singular – ‘that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.’ In short, while chapter 1 spreads the creation out over a week, chapter 2 compresses it entirely into one day.”
This asserts that “in the day” means on one particular day based solely on the singular form of “day” within that phrase. Indeed?
Thus, we may conclude that Genesis 35:3 makes clear that Jacob experienced his troubles during a single day of distress. Leviticus 14:1-9, likewise makes clear that the rules in effect in the day (14:2) of a leper’s cleansing, which take about a week, take merely one day to go through. This is simply misreading of Biblical language.
- Coll.WAP – Collins, C. John. “The Wayyiqtol as ‘Pluperfect’: When and Why”. Tyndale Bulletin 46, 1995, 177-40.
- Gree.UE – Greenberg, Moshe. Understanding Exodus. Berhman House: 1969.
- Mat.Gen126 – Mathews, Kenneth A. Genesis 1-11:26. Broadman and Holman, 1996.
Defend the word previously [Answer: This is contrary to the teaching of the Bible, so by definition is impossible. You are asking the Bible to contradict itself. Human nature demands that we bring our evil with us wherever we go. Being a Christian does not make you perfect; we are redeemed sinners not perfect in every/any way.]
misunderstoodranter The bible contradicts itself all over the place… as for evil… hmmm not sure I agree with that – most people are generally good people and not knowingly evil – the bible seems to like to teach people that people are evil – which is odd.
Defend the word answer: Read the news and what do you find? During war many women are raped as men tend to believe they will not be caught. A ship runs aground and people go and steal the contents of the containers, children are not monitored by their parents and they go wild. I think these are self evident and show that our evolution seems to take us in only one direction to lead to a greater number of ways to destroy each other.
Defend the word previously [Answer: Again you demand proofs that are historical not testable in a laboratory, so this will not pass as a genuine attempt to discover. These are only active according to the Bible as a last resort i.e. God is not a cosmic exhibitionist. Where there is a genuine need he may act.]
misunderstoodranter Ahh so the laboratory counts now – don’t you stop and ask yourself why they are not testable in the lab – if I was your doctor, and I gave you a pill and said by the way this hasn’t been tested in the lab – would you take the pill on blind faith or would you want evidence that it was safe?
Defend the word answer: What??? What has this got to do with the price of eggs? We are not talking Health and Safety issues here, we are talking about God’s existence and the implications this will have on the way we live our lives. What I’m spelling out is you can’t use historical events and test them . You have different criteria for that and it is called historical analysis.
Defend the word previously [Answer: So you have your own criteria that you want to impose on God, and nothing else can be used by God. Is that not hypocritical and deliberately ignoring the possibility of God working in a normal way?]
misunderstoodranter No – what I am saying is that the word of another human is not proof – because they could be telling porkies or exaggerating stuff. If I said to you I met a fairy the other day, look she took out my tooth you must now believe in fairies – would you?
Defend the word answer: When the words of man are not used we have nothing. We are confined by the fact that we depend on each other. However, what we must do is canvass all opinions and then evaluate them as being true or false. Even the Bible is written and recorded by man and at no point do we find God doing the work of writing except for the first 10 commandments which were destroyed, after which Moses had to do this again.
Defend the word previously [So I’m supposed to take your word for it? You’ve got to be kidding me. I have studied this subject for years, not just a few months but I would not show such arrogance to demand others conform to my view just because I was with the majority. As I said to you before, there is plenty of information on this blog so look at it and then you are free to challenge it. There is nothing hidden here]
misunderstoodranter Nope – with regard to evolution, I suggest you study a PhD in evolutionary biology. Rather than believe the creationalist ID movement which has an agenda to try to get god taught as science in schools – which is immoral, even by your own standards – aka the view of Dr Ross!
Defend the word answer: Well I did say I don’t agree with all that Dr Ross says, and I did comment that he would be more up your alleyway. This is not evidence that you could use, yet again you pick on the words of one man as evidence. However, the point to take from this is that Creationism or ID should not stop you from believing in God as there are many Christians who do believe whole heartedly in evolution.
Well I don’t have a PhD but I do check what others are saying (even Dr Dawkins) and not just take opinions from one single man (which is verity of writers). Then I evaluate all the information. I may not be a professional but I consider it unacceptable that in today’s world with so much readily available information we still stay ignorant of the facts.
Look at you, you visit many atheistic blogs, databases and then form your opinion. (Admittedly you have come to talk with me and challenge my views which I guess is some kind of mercy mission on your part). I on the other hand try and get both sides. The fact is that you have continued to come here and there is a good track record of our discussions. This is good for the reader who will look at this information and for you and me as we can check to see if our logic stands up under the scrutiny of others.
Defend the word