View Full Version : Why does the bible have two creation stories?
I don't get it. On the 6th day, got created men and women at the same time. So where does the garden of eden story fit in?
BOTH of the stories say god created things differently. In the 6 day story it says that god created animals before people, but in the garden story it says that animals, and then a women, were created to keep adam company.
napoleon_complex
2006-02-26, 13:33
Because what's important isn't HOW God created the world and man, it's THAT God created the world and man. They're just allegories meant to express a complex idea(God creating the world and us), to what was back then, an illiterate population.
Look at it this way. If you're trying to explain the idea of creation to a very small child, is it easier to just tell him the facts, or is it easier to tell him a story?
quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:
Look at it this way. If you're trying to explain the idea of creation to a very small child, is it easier to just tell him the facts, or is it easier to tell him a story?
It's easier to tell him one story, and not two which contradict each other. Hence the initial question.
Lou Reed
2006-02-26, 15:32
I dont like Genisis either
quote:Originally posted by Lou Reed:
I dont like Genisis either
I didn't say I don't like it, I'm just curious. I started to read the bible and it's not as boring as I thought it would be.
napoleon_complex
2006-02-26, 21:21
quote:Originally posted by Rust:
It's easier to tell him one story, and not two which contradict each other. Hence the initial question.
It's easier to explain something if you tell it twice, not just once....
quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:
It's easier to explain something if you tell it twice, not just once....
So you're actually arguing that they couldn't have repeated the same story twice? Is that really your argument? If that's not your argument, then please stop grasping at straws. You have absolutely no point: If they could have repeated the same story twice, then my point, and the initial question by Zay, still stands.
napoleon_complex
2006-02-26, 21:40
You're the one grasping at straws, not me.
What is your point? That it's easier to tell someone one story to explain them a complex idea? Well, my point is that it's just as easy(if not easier) to tell him two stories.
I don't quite know what you're getting your panties in a bunch over, considering I simply answered his question. He asked why there are two bible stories, and I explained why. I also said it shouldn't be confisuing because what's important isn't HOW God did it, it's just THAT god did it. What is so fucking confusing about that? NOTHING!
quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:
You're the one grasping at straws, not me.
What is your point? That it's easier to tell someone one story to explain them a complex idea? Well, my point is that it's just as easy(if not easier) to tell him two stories.
No. That's not my point at all.
You said that the bible contains two stories because it was easier to explain the creation myth. That isn't an answer. One story which does not contradict itself is much easier to both explain and understand than two stories which do. Moreover, even if your argument revolves on the quantity of stories being told, that still fails to explain anything because they could have repeated the initial story with more ease, making your argument also void in this regard.
Hence why I said "So you're actually arguing that they couldn't have repeated the same story twice? Is that really your argument? If that's not your argument, then please stop grasping at straws. "
If you were not arguing that the same story could have not been said twice, then your point was meaningless. I could then say that it is easier to explain the creation myth with the same story twice, than it is to explain the creation myth with two different stories that contradict each other.
quote:
I don't quite know what you're getting your panties in a bunch over, considering I simply answered his question. He asked why there are two bible stories, and I explained why. I also said it shouldn't be confisuing because what's important isn't HOW God did it, it's just THAT god did it. What is so fucking confusing about that? NOTHING!
No. You did not answer his question. You did not, in any way, answer why there are two different and contradictory stories. Your answer that "it is easier to explain it with two stories" isn't an argument at all; they could have repeated the one story - something which proves to be even easier. Thus, you have answered nothing.
The point being, his question still stands. Your "explanation" fails to explain why they chose two contradictory stories as oppose to one story repeated twice, or even two different, yet non-contradictory, stories said once each.
[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-26-2006).]
quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:
You're the one grasping at straws, not me.
What is your point? That it's easier to tell someone one story to explain them a complex idea? Well, my point is that it's just as easy(if not easier) to tell him two stories.
I don't quite know what you're getting your panties in a bunch over, considering I simply answered his question. He asked why there are two bible stories, and I explained why. I also said it shouldn't be confisuing because what's important isn't HOW God did it, it's just THAT god did it. What is so fucking confusing about that? NOTHING!
haha That's how the whole religion is based. Everyone is told what to do and like sheep they follow without even questioning...
Why can't a christian answer me without having to turn this into another atheism vs monotheism debate?
Well, Im Jewish, and I dont believe that Genesis is factual. However, heres my opinion.
The G-d created Man, and woman on earth. However Eden is not on earth, he created Adam and Eve there, to tend to his own personal garden. However they sinned, and were thrown down to Earth to live a hard life just like everyone else.
In reality its a metaphor: Nobody's perfect, and even if you could talk to the G-d and have a good life, youd still screw up.
quote:Originally posted by Lou Reed:
I dont like Genisis either
Its all about nintendo Biatch
Why is it that the likes of biblical scholars like digital saviour will whip out the quotes when it comes time to talk about abortion yet can't answer this simple question? For those that have tried to answer, thanks.
napoleon_complex
2006-02-27, 23:49
quote:Originally posted by Zay:
Why can't a christian answer me without having to turn this into another atheism vs monotheism debate?
I told you the answer. The reason there is two is that it's easier to get across a point if you tell it twice.
Dre Crabbe
2006-02-28, 00:03
quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:
I told you the answer. The reason there is two is that it's easier to get across a point if you tell it twice.
But they are two different stories, two stories that contradict each other. So both stories can't be true, only one can. So that doesn't really make any point...
ArgonPlasma2000
2006-02-28, 00:27
I dont see two different stories...
I am assuming that you say there are two stories because the man and woman are mentioned, topologically at least, before Eden and the creation of Eve.
The Bible isnt the first book to lead with a story on the first page that the details are given later...
quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:
I told you the answer. The reason there is two is that it's easier to get across a point if you tell it twice.
Again, that isn't an answer. They could have explained one story twice, which would be much easier to get a point across. Thus, "ease" isn't an answer.
quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:
I dont see two different stories...
I am assuming that you say there are two stories because the man and woman are mentioned, topologically at least, before Eden and the creation of Eve.
The Bible isnt the first book to lead with a story on the first page that the details are given later...
This isn't just a case of "leading with a story" and then "giving deatails later". The sequence of events is different, and contradictory. There are two different stories.
ArgonPlasma2000
2006-02-28, 01:28
quote:Originally posted by Rust:
This isn't just a case of "leading with a story" and then "giving deatails later". The sequence of events is different, and contradictory. There are two different stories.
Maybe we are reading the wrong places or different translations. Care to post exactly which verses support this idea, please?
Genesis 1-2:4 and Genesis 2:4-3:24
Any translation. You can pick the New International Version for compatability, the gyst remains the same. Two stories, with contradictory orders of creation.
napoleon_complex
2006-02-28, 02:26
quote:Originally posted by Dre Crabbe:
But they are two different stories, two stories that contradict each other. So both stories can't be true, only one can. So that doesn't really make any point...
If you take them as allegories(which they are), then the fact that they contradict eachother doesn't matter. They're stories meant to express a point, not stories meant to describe exactly how God created the world. That is irrelevant(theologically). The only thing that is important in the creation stories is that God created the world.
ArgonPlasma2000
2006-02-28, 02:50
quote:Originally posted by Rust:
Genesis 1-2:4 and Genesis 2:4-3:24
Any translation. You can pick the New International Version for compatability, the gyst remains the same. Two stories, with contradictory orders of creation.
Ummm, no. I read:
God made Earth.
Made animals.
Made man.
Seventh day.
Now the supposed second story:
code:<pre>
{
{2:1} Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and
all the host of them. {2:2} And on the seventh day God
ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the
seventh day from all his work which he had made. {2:3}
And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because
that in it he had rested from all his work which God created
and made.
{2:4} 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, {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. {2:6} But there went up a mist from the earth, and
watered the whole face of the ground. {2:7} And the LORD
God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living
soul.
{2:8} And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in
Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. {2:9}
And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every
tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree
of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of
knowledge of good and evil. {2:10} And a river went out of
Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted,
and became into four heads. {2:11} The name of the first
[is] Pison: that [is] it which compasseth the whole land of
Havilah, where [there is] gold; {2:12} And the gold of that
land [is] good: there [is] bdellium and the onyx stone.
{2:13} And the name of the second river [is] Gihon: the
same [is] it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
{2:14} And the name of the third river [is] Hiddekel: that
[is] it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the
fourth river [is] Euphrates. {2:15} And the LORD God took
the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and
to keep it. {2:16} And the LORD God commanded the man,
saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
{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.
{2:18} And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the
man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
{2:19} 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]
Genesis Page 2
the name thereof. {2:20} 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. {2:21} And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall
upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and
closed up the flesh instead thereof; {2:22} And the rib,
which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a
woman, and brought her unto the man. {2:23} And Adam
said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:
she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of
Man. {2:24} Therefore shall a man leave his father and his
mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one
flesh. {2:25} And they were both naked, the man and his
wife, and were not ashamed.
{3:1} Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of
the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto
the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every
tree of the garden?
{3:2} And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat
of the fruit of the trees of the garden: {3:3} But of the fruit
of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath
said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye
die. {3:4} And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall
not surely die: {3:5} 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. {3:6} And when the
woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it
[was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make
[one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and
gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. {3:7}
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that
they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and
made themselves aprons. {3:8} And they heard the voice of
the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day:
and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of
the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. {3:9} And
the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him,
Where [art] thou? {3:10} And he said, I heard thy voice in
the garden, and I was afraid, because I [was] naked; and I
hid myself. {3:11} And he said, Who told thee that thou
[wast] naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I
commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? {3:12} And
the man said, The woman whom thou gavest [to be] with
me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. {3:13} And the
LORD God said unto the woman, What [is] this [that] thou
hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me,
and I did eat. {3:14} And the LORD God said unto the
serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou [art] cursed
above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy
belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of
thy life: {3:15} And I will put enmity between thee and the
woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise
thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. {3:16} Unto the
woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy
conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and
thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over
thee. {3:17} And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast
hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the
tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat
of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt
thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life; {3:18} Thorns also
and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the
herb of the field; {3:19} In the sweat of thy face shalt thou
eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast
thou taken: for dust thou [art,] and unto dust shalt thou
return. {3:20} And Adam called his wife’s name Eve;
because she was the mother of all living. {3:21} Unto Adam
also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins,
and clothed them. {3:22} 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: {3:23} Therefore the LORD
God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the
ground from whence he was taken. {3:24} So he drove out
the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden
Cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to
keep the way of the tree of life.}</pre>
I dont read anything pertaining remotely to creation in this second passage.
The second story is seen there clear as day. To claim that there is nothing in it pertaining to creation is ridiculous to say the least. It covers the creation of earth, the heavens, man, animals, plants and water. That they may have a diffent intents or different amount of details, is another thing all together; but the second story does in fact deal with creation.
Now the discrepancy:
"8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
[...]
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name."
Thus the rough order of the second account is:
1. Earth
2. Man
3. Animals
As opposed to
1. Earth
2. Animals
3. Man
[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-28-2006).]
ArgonPlasma2000
2006-02-28, 03:15
quote:Originally posted by Rust:
The second story is seen there clear as day. To claim that there is nothing in it pertaining to creation is ridiculous to say the least. It covers the creation of earth, the heavens, man, animals, plants and water. That they may have a diffent intents or different amount of details, is another thing all together; but the second story does in fact deal with creation.
Now the discrepancy:
"8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
[...]
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name."
Thus the rough order of the second account is:
1. Earth
2. Man
3. Animals
As opposed to
1. Earth
2. Animals
3. Man
Is English the native language in Puerto Rico?
"had formed" and "had planted" is past perfect tense. As in, occuring beforehand. This puts animals and Eden before man in your second account.
The bible uses "had formed" for both man and the beasts. Therefore, you have no point. Your "logic" requires us to conveniently assume the the initial "had formed" aimed at man represents something which happened after the other "had formed" that is referenced later on (the beasts). Not only is this a ridiculous notion, but it proves absolutely nothing since the other possibility exists as well.
P.S. I like how you childishly insult me while having just previously claimed - through sheer ignorance - that the second story did not contain anything pertaining to creation. Is English the native language where you live? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)
[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-28-2006).]
ArgonPlasma2000
2006-02-28, 06:48
quote:Originally posted by Rust:
The bible uses "had formed" for both man and the beasts. Therefore, you have no point. Your "logic" requires us to conveniently assume the the initial "had formed" aimed at man represents something which happened after the other "had formed" that is referenced later on (the beasts). Not only is this a ridiculous notion, but it proves absolutely nothing since the other possibility exists as well.
P.S. I like how you childishly insult me while having just previously claimed - through sheer ignorance - that the second story did not contain anything pertaining to creation. Is English the native language where you live? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)
You stick your neck out too far, Mr. Rico. For how can you even say there is a discrepency at all if you yourself admit the other possibility exists as well?
Why is it that you focus your attention on a possibility instead of trying my hand at a big so-called discrepency? The Bible calls itself perfect. The events contain the possibility that the events outlined in the second passage are chronologically aligned to those in the former. Therefore, it can be stated that since there is only an infintesimal chance of the opposing, that there is no discrepency.
But I do not expect you to understand any of it anyway. Its not like you have the capacity to understand it, so why try?
(And you know you got served something major http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif))
[This message has been edited by ArgonPlasma2000 (edited 02-28-2006).]
quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:
You stick your neck out too far, Mr. Rico. For how can you even say there is a discrepency at all if you yourself admit the other possibility exists as well?
Why is it that you focus your attention on a possibility instead of trying my hand at a big so-called discrepency? The Bible calls itself perfect. The events contain the possibility that the events outlined in the second passage are chronologically aligned to those in the former. Therefore, it can be stated that since there is only an infintesimal chance of the opposing, that there is no discrepency.
But I do not expect you to understand any of it anyway. Its not like you have the capacity to understand it, so why try?
(And you know you got served something major http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif))
Perfect? You are kidding, right?
AngelsOfTheArts
2006-02-28, 08:26
quote:Originally posted by Zay:
I don't get it. On the 6th day, got created men and women at the same time. So where does the garden of eden story fit in?
BOTH of the stories say god created things differently. In the 6 day story it says that god created animals before people, but in the garden story it says that animals, and then a women, were created to keep adam company.
I was raised to believe that the priest that translated the King James version of the Bible, from Jewish to English -- which is where all English versions arrive from -- were, as they say, drunk. Most people drink to relieve stress, stress such as a King who has given 'have done by' dates topped with the fact that electricity had yet to be created and old people like priest could not see to well by candle light. Drinking was not a crime back then, I don't even think it was an issue until after the Bible was translated, i.e., the water in wine wedding. In truth I believe it was made an issue if one was sober, for example they would say, "What are you, sober?" So alot of it won't make sense; however, I was also raised to believe that it is my understanding of the Bible that doesn't make sense, for example, a year to us is but a moment to God.
I understood the Bible to say: God created the Angels, the Heavens, the Earth, the animals, Man, and then brought the animals in front of Adam to see what he would call them, then after walking and talking with him, He created Woman whom Adam called Eve. ((Maybe I should just explained that to begin with, before I called all the priest of old 'drunk'.))
quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:
You stick your neck out too far, Mr. Rico. For how can you even say there is a discrepency at all if you yourself admit the other possibility exists as well?
Why is it that you focus your attention on a possibility instead of trying my hand at a big so-called discrepency? The Bible calls itself perfect. The events contain the possibility that the events outlined in the second passage are chronologically aligned to those in the former. Therefore, it can be stated that since there is only an infintesimal chance of the opposing, that there is no discrepency.
1. You're grasping at straws. You're giving the bible an atrocious witting style, one that jumps (and conviently for you we should add) from correctly saying the order of Earth's creation to suddenly, according to you, mention man who supposedly was created later but is mentioned before beast who were supposedly created first. That's the definition of grasping at straws.
2. You cannot suppose that there is no discrepancy. Nor can you prove your baseless and ignorant assertion that "there is only an infintesimal chance of the opposing". To suppose that is to claim that there is no discrepancy and that you can prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that what the bible meant. It is obvious that you can't even begin to do that.
All of this is merely your sad attempt to claim a victory when there is none.
quote:
But I do not expect you to understand any of it anyway. Its not like you have the capacity to understand it, so why try?
Thank you for that bit of hilarity. Your facade of intellectualism littered with spelling mistakes, coupled with your attack on my mental capacity in the very thread where you so ignorantly and erroneously claimed that the second story did not contain anything pertaining to creation, make this new post of yours hilarious.
Isn't bible translated from the actual source?
I Reference The Nintendo and your all still stuck on this bible shit!? NINTENDO!!!
quote:Originally posted by Zay:
I don't get it. On the 6th day, got created men and women at the same time. So where does the garden of eden story fit in?
BOTH of the stories say god created things differently. In the 6 day story it says that god created animals before people, but in the garden story it says that animals, and then a women, were created to keep adam company.
The reason there is contridiction in the stories in the bible, is because there were more than one person telling these stories. On top of that it has been edited down the years.
"Isaac Asimov" tried to untangle the different writers of these stories from one another in one of his books on the bible. I believe the title was "Asimov's Guide to the Bible". I should warn you though it's a pretty big book. For those who have the time to read it, it's an interesting read.
ArgonPlasma2000
2006-02-28, 21:19
quote:Originally posted by Rust:
Thank you for that bit of hilarity. Your facade of intellectualism littered with spelling mistakes, coupled with your attack on my mental capacity in the very thread where you so ignorantly and erroneously claimed that the second story did not contain anything pertaining to creation, make this new post of yours hilarious.
If you had a cursory knowledge of the Bible you would know what I am speaking of. Yu only show your lack of understanding more clearly.
quote:1. You're grasping at straws. You're giving the bible an atrocious witting style, one that jumps (and conviently for you we should add) from correctly saying the order of Earth's creation to suddenly, according to you, mention man who supposedly was created later but is mentioned before beast who were supposedly created first. That's the definition of grasping at straws.
I should say that you and the others calling for this logic slip are the ones that are truely grasping for straws. I find it ironic that you admit that it is quite convenient for me to say that the Bible jumps from one topic to the next using verb forms, when you yourself base your argument on the same.
quote:2. You cannot suppose that there is no discrepancy. Nor can you prove your baseless and ignorant assertion that "there is only an infintesimal chance of the opposing". To suppose that is to claim that there is no discrepancy and that you can prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that what the bible meant. It is obvious that you can't even begin to do that.
Again with the iron, Mr. Rico. You cannot prove there is a discrepency at all and are merely assuming it exists. You quoted exaclty where you say this exists. The passage gives information of events of past tense, but never in any chonological order. Therefore, you cannot assume anything is out of place to begin with because no data for the order of creation in the second passage is given at all.
If I were to write a literary work and have outlined how and when things have taken place, I can give myself liberty of only refering to past events and omitting redundancy when clarifying at a later time.
Since English is not the exclusive language of your native country, I cannot assume you have a grasp of such advanced concepts of English. My apologies, Mr. Rico. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)
ArgonPlasma2000
2006-02-28, 21:20
quote:Originally posted by Nemisis:
The reason there is contridiction in the stories in the bible, is because there were more than one person telling these stories. On top of that it has been edited down the years.
"Isaac Asimov" tried to untangle the different writers of these stories from one another in one of his books on the bible. I believe the title was "Asimov's Guide to the Bible". I should warn you though it's a pretty big book. For those who have the time to read it, it's an interesting read.
The first five books of the Bible were written by Moses.
quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:
The first five books of the Bible were written by Moses.
wrong.
the real answer to this is that the second story, in which man is created first, is actually the oldest. this mirrors most ancient creation stories with man naming the animals. the first creation story came later, and they both got incorporated into the present-day bible.
quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:
If you had a cursory knowledge of the Bible you would know what I am speaking of. Yu only show your lack of understanding more clearly.
Really, then by all means, enlighten me. Show me how a passage that specifically mentions how god created the universe does not pertain to the creation. Go right ahead.
quote:I should say that you and the others calling for this logic slip are the ones that are truely grasping for straws. I find it ironic that you admit that it is quite convenient for me to say that the Bible jumps from one topic to the next using verb forms, when you yourself base your argument on the same.
My argument is not based on any such thing. My argument is based on a reasonable reading of what the bible states. Yours, on the other hand, claims that the bible was written in an unreasonable manner - a manner which was perfectly fine to begin with as it describes the creation of Earth first, but then magically (and conveniently) changes to describe the creation of man at a later time, to then describe the creation of beasts, allegedly meaning they were created before man.
quote:Again with the iron, Mr. Rico. You cannot prove there is a discrepency at all and are merely assuming it exists. You quoted exaclty where you say this exists. The passage gives information of events of past tense, but never in any chonological order. Therefore, you cannot assume anything is out of place to begin with because no data for the order of creation in the second passage is given at all.
And you cannot assume the opposite. You cannot assume that the order contained in the second story is not out of place. Thus, at best, we are on the very same boat. Certainly not a victory for you, as you so stupidly claimed. You have "served" nobody but yourself.
quote:
If I were to write a literary work and have outlined how and when things have taken place, I can give myself liberty of only refering to past events and omitting redundancy when clarifying at a later time.
Since English is not the exclusive language of your native country, I cannot assume you have a grasp of such advanced concepts of English. My apologies, Mr. Rico
If I had ever said that you couldn't, you would have a point. Since I didn't, I can only assume that elementary skill of reading (your own native language no less) quite simply eludes you. You yet again delight me with the irony of questioning my English in the same thread were you prove yourself to be inept at understanding it by continuously making elementary spelling errors and proving yourself unable to read correctly. Thanks for the laughs.
[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-01-2006).]
jb_mcbean
2006-02-28, 23:05
quote:Originally posted by Zay:
Why does the bible have two creation stories?
Because it sucks.
quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:
The first five books of the Bible were written by Moses.
Do you have hardcore proof of this? If so where may it be found?
aussie_king
2006-03-01, 01:44
quote:Originally posted by Zay:
I don't get it. On the 6th day, got created men and women at the same time. So where does the garden of eden story fit in?
BOTH of the stories say god created things differently. In the 6 day story it says that god created animals before people, but in the garden story it says that animals, and then a women, were created to keep adam company.
quote:Originally posted by kenwih:
the real answer to this is that the second story, in which man is created first, is actually the oldest. this mirrors most ancient creation stories with man naming the animals. the first creation story came later, and they both got incorporated into the present-day bible.
Valerius
2006-03-03, 02:03
I don't understand your question. Just because God made animals before Adam, doesn't mena tehy weren't to keep him company. God knew he was going to create Adam, jsut like he knew you'd post this question when he made Earth.
Stories made to corrupt the weak minds of children. It's quite sad. P.S. where the hell is jesus he was supposed to get all you christian folk a while ago that fuckers late.
quote:Originally posted by Zay:
Why can't a christian answer me without having to turn this into another atheism vs monotheism debate?
hey, im hoping i can help. i dont want to make you mad, thats the last thing i want to do, im just trying to help you understand.
ok, so heres how it goes:
Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; make and female he created them."
Ok, lets backtrack now for 1 second.
So on the 6th day god made animals. Genesis 1:25 "God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."
In order to understand the 1st verse, you must understand the 2nd verse i typed out. See, God made things according to their kinds, and this is why God made a female, because he he designed humans to need eachother: he created us according to our kind.
So back to the first verse, notice the bold word. He created man, and then after the semicolon, it adds that just like the animals were made according to their kind, so were humans ( the addition of the female ).
Maybe reading the chapter, or at least the 2nd half in its entirty might clarify.
Hope this helped.
that made no fucking sense whatsoever
Nidias_91
2006-03-03, 03:44
quote:Originally posted by Valerius:
I don't understand your question. Just because God made animals before Adam, doesn't mena tehy weren't to keep him company. God knew he was going to create Adam, jsut like he knew you'd post this question when he made Earth.
Go fuck yourself in the ass with a crucifix.
quote:Originally posted by Valerius:
I don't understand your question. Just because God made animals before Adam, doesn't mena tehy weren't to keep him company. God knew he was going to create Adam, jsut like he knew you'd post this question when he made Earth.
This is what I really don't understand. How can you push and shove you free will bullshit yet say that God Already knows what I'm going to do? How can free will exist if he basically "programmed us" to be a certain way?
[This message has been edited by ohhi (edited 03-03-2006).]
Opiumfarmosaurus
2006-03-03, 14:43
You can know the future without having any part in causing it.
you and i can, but god causes everything.
You Caught them Red Handed.
I have never seen a topic (outside of ones involving Jeff) that has brought in so many mods. I personally agree with napoleon_complex, both stories are just repeats that make it easier to understand.
quote:Originally posted by Opiumfarmosaurus:
You can know the future without having any part in causing it.
Didn't god create EVERYTHING though (including the future)?