Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
Again no, God didn't turn out to be correct (unless you 'interpret' the text to mean something other than what it says).
My Genesis Challenge
- Thread starter AV1611VET
- Start date
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
Do you not see that this type of response is not only not helpful, but is in opposition to your claimed aim of discussing it in this thread? You've claimed a 'framework' without providing the slightest evidence and when it's pointed out that even a 'framwork' does not explain blatant contradictions, you don't even attempt to discuss.
Never heard a good explanation... just a lot of apologetic fumbling. We'll count this as a failed OP. Too easy.
Ya ... they had a job to do ... kick-start a human population on the earth.
And God wasn't going to let physical death get in the way.
The day you steal my car, I promise you it'll surely die.
Just as soon as it gets out of range of my remote starter.
Would you recognize a good apologetic explanation if you heard it?
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
Yes. I have accepted some good ones just recently on this forum. Let's not get sidetracked however. Do you have an apologetic for your claim of the creation myth's 2 versions being a parenthetical story in a story, an explanation that takes into account every word of both and not just those that fit your theory... ?
Here's another one for you. Why was the tree of life needed if they were originally created immortal?... and then guarded when they would surely die? Did God come up with the original dig hole/fill hole task in the army?
See, this is how most apologetics go... they only mention what fits and then tries to slam the door... usually on its own foot, or hand, or head when attempted in front of someone who knows the stories.
Last edited:
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
It's posts like this that make people think that your claims of wanting to discuss issues are not true.Right -- and neither did Elvis.
You've got my contention as to why the story is not a contradiction.
That should be good enough to satisfy an accuser.
But ... no ... you want an apologetic to my apologetic now.
The fact of the matter is, no matter what it's called (other than "contradiction," of course), the academic thing is to keep asking ad infinitum, and the last one to post is the winner.
That's the academic way.
Jim: Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictions; and they're contradictions because two different people wrote them.
Joe: No. Genesis 1 and 2 are called "A."
Jim: Do you have evidence that A applies to my accusation?
Joe: Sure -- B.
Jim: Show me evidence that B applies to A.
Joe: Okay -- C.
Jim: Show me C applies to B.
And blah, blah, blah.
C'mon, Skeptic.
You can do better than that.
"So God was wrong."
Nice and vague and scholarly.
I always like how I usually back what I say up with specific passages in the Bible, Wikipedia, commentaries, and/or links to other sites.
Only to be handwaved with blurry, vague rebuttals like this.
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
I'm not sure what you need me to say other than that God said they would die on a particular day, and they didn't.
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
That was fun... Now back to the point.
You think it is a framework narrative simply because you have a "consideration" for one of the least contentious incoherencies in a sea of them. When asked to account for the more difficult contentions in the "framework" it's "no-can-do - one per customer. I'll hang on to this life preserver and ignore all the drowning going on around me. Just look at me - only at me. Now see? Ain't God grand"!
C'mon now.
If you're so hurting to find a contradiction in the Bible, you can do much better than Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
Try this doosey:
Matthew 27:37 And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Mark 15:26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Luke 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
John 19:19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Or this one:
2 Samuel 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
1 Chronicles 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
Concerning the sign... meh... The important part, the part that got him killed was the King of the Jews thing he touted. Not a good idea during Passover in Jerusalem, after a Jewish revolt where Romans got their eyes and ears peeled for cult rabblerousing - especially the Maccabean Messianic kind..
See!!! That's a good apologetic.
I'll let you do the second one... go!
2 Samuel 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
1 Chronicles 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
QV for an explanation of this paradox:
Job 2:7 So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.
Job 42:11 Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him: every man also gave him a piece of money, and every one an earring of gold.
Although Satan did it, God let him, and was willing to take the credit.
Lion IRC
Active member
To me it doesnt hinge on the definition of "in that day" but rather who was correct regarding "you shall surely die / not die". (Lest you die.)
SteveB
Well-known member
Ok....
Why not.
My view is that God was ready to "spill the beans" on creation.
It's clear from Genesis 1:31 that he was quite pleased with creation.
In detailing it to Moses, in his 80 days on the mountain (Sinai), at some point Moses was sufficiently blown away that he told God-- "wow! Just wow! I can indeed write down everything you've told me you did, but do you think that the people can understand all this? There may indeed be some at some point in the future who'd be able to take it in, but until then, you'll just overwhelm your people.
How about dialing it back, and make a much less detailed description."
So, we have Genesis 1 and 2.
My thinking is that had God made it detailed, Genesis 1:1 alone would be a compendium of several billion volumes, 1000 pages each.
Mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.... on a level so advanced that even the finest, most brilliant people to ever live would spend entire lifetimes and not even scratch the surface.
There would be entire libraries of notebooks by scientists who would be just asking questions that would raise more questions and more questions about the questions, but never actually gaining understanding.
Which then raises the question of--
What good would all that information do, if the most brilliant people on earth were left scratching their heads and looking totally confused and consternated beyond their faculty to even frame a coherent question?
So... a framework construct... ok. I wouldn't have stated it that way. But it works.
Restrict the amount of information so that as many people as possible will read it and then leave it up to them to make the choice to learn more or just walk away.
I find it amusing that there's a group of people who stop learning and then just complain that it's too simplistic or can't possibly be that way. As well as then concoct another way that doesn't require YHVH and takes place across an extended period of time and is the result of a "naturally occurring process."
I think that the problem many people have is that they stop, and don't want to learn anything more.
Thanks for your input, Steve.
I don't normally read long post, but this one I made an exception.
I could talk about the Creation Events all day long.