Just Accidental?

[SkepticThinker]

Something like that. I believe God is intelligent so I don't quite qualify for panentheism because it is saying God does interpenetrate, but I think maybe God CAN do that, but doesn't always.

That's an interesting way to look at it.

 

[gnostic]

It depends on which definition you use. I think most Creationists believe the Creative days were literal. We do not.

When you closely consider the context of Genesis 1:1 thru 2:22, especially the 6th day....too much was going on (Adam naming the animals, Adam 'continuing' without a mate, then Eve created), for it to be literally 24 hrs.; every day was said to have an end, but not the 7th (in Hebrews 4, Paul stated God's rest was still going on!).

So YEC's? No. But believing Jehovah is our Creator? Definitely!

You really understand your own scriptures you read?

Between Genesis 1:1 and the 1st half of verse 2:4, which is the 6-day of creation, this is just creation myth, which have nothing to do with Adam and Eve or the Garden of Eden.

You clearly know the order of this myth, because it spelled out what was created when. And animals that lived on land were created (1:24-25) before man and woman were first created (1:26-27). Man and woman were the last things he created (1:26-31); nothing here say that these humans were Adam and Eve.

From the second half of verse 2:4 to the end of this chapter (2:24), is completely different creation myth.

In this 2nd myth, there were no plants and no animals when the earth and sky were created:

In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; 6 but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground—

Note what I have highlighted in red: "no plants" and "no herbs".

In the next verse (2:7), god created man from dust:

7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground,[b] and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.

Plants weren't created (compare 2:5 and 2:8-9) until he created man (Adam) first. God didn't create plants until after man became alive in 2:7:

8 And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 Out of the ground the Lord God made 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 the knowledge of good and evil.

And then, he only created land animals and birds (2:19) after he created man, first (2:7) and then plants, second (2:8-9):

19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner.

So here in Genesis 2, this version say

1. man (2:7) was created first
2. ...before plants (2:8-9)
3. ...and land animals and birds (2:19).
4. And woman or Eve was created last, of course.

But in Genesis 1, the order of creation were

1. plants (1:11-12), first, on the 3rd day,
2. ...follow by birds and sea life (1:20-22) on the 5th day,
3. ...and on the 6th day, land animals (1:24-25) were created...
4. ...before man and woman (1:26-27).

That's 2 different myths with 2 different orders of what were created when.

 

[sayak83]

You really understand your own scriptures you read.

Between Genesis 1:1 and the 1st half of verse 2:4, which is the 6-day of creation, this is just creation myth, which have nothing to do with Adam and Eve or the Garden of Eden.

You clearly know the order of this myth, because it spelled out what was created when. And animals that lived on land were created (1:24-25) before man and woman were first created (1:26-27). Man and woman were the last things he created (1:26-31); nothing here say that these humans were Adam and Eve.

From the second half of verse 2:4 to the end of this chapter (2:24), is completely different creation myth.

In this 2nd myth, there were no plants and no animals when the earth and sky were created:


Note what I have highlighted in red: "no plants" and "no herbs".

In the next verse (2:7), god created man from dust:


Plants weren't created (compare 2:5 and 2:8-9) until he created man (Adam) first. God didn't create plants until after man became alive in 2:7:


And then, he only created land animals and birds (2:19) after he created man, first (2:7) and then plants, second (2:8-9):


So here in Genesis 2, this version say

1. man (2:7) was created first
2. ...before plants (2:8-9)
3. ...and land animals and birds (2:19).
4. And woman or Eve was created last, of course.

But in Genesis 1, the order of creation were

1. plants (1:11-12), first, on the 3rd day,
2. ...follow by birds and sea life (1:20-22) on the 5th day,
3. ...and on the 6th day, land animals (1:24-25) were created...
4. ...before man and woman (1:26-27).

That's 2 different myths with 2 different orders of what were created when.

And do not forget...two different assemblies of Gods. YhWh and His Host vs Elohim

 

[Deeje]

Deeje

I think you massively missed the point; you are really a true JW .

We love missing the point especially when there was no real point to miss.
Thanks or the compliment though.

The point is this: Whenever you use the word "day" and it is preceded by a number, the "day" is [almost] always literal. I stand corrected if you can show me in scriptures OR IN ANY OTHER WRITINGS where it would be appropriate to interpret "day" [or any Noun, perhaps] as non-literal when it is preceded by a number. This mere fact, along with the fact that the bible did speak about the "morning" and "evening" relating to each "day" is more than enough evidence that the writer(s) of Genesis meant to convey a message of literal days in the creation. One question I always asked persons who interpret the "day" in Genesis as non-literal and had never gotten a good answer is this: IF the writer(s) of Genesis had wanted to convey a literal meaning for "day" in Genesis, what would be the best way to do so? Because my thinking would be that referring to the evening and the morning would be the clearest way to show its literal meaning; perhaps you can correct me here with what a better way would have been.

So you believe that all that was accomplished during the creative "days" were just the great magician "poofing" things into existence, instantaneously in 24 hour periods? You really see Adam naming all the animals as God brought them to him.....in all probability thousands of them....having him observe their characteristics and deciding on an appropriate descriptive name for them all?...... and the snake fooling Eve into eating the fruit.....and then Adam being talked into joining the rebellion....and then realizing they were naked and sewing fig leaves together....and God making long garments of skin before kicking them out of Eden?
Good grief! I am tired just thinking about all that.

The length of the creative days, if you read the narrative, is really not that important. Genesis was not written as a science textbook. It was written to a relatively simple people to whom a detailed scientific explanation would have been useless. God keeps the KISS principle in mind when discussing things related to the outworking of his will. It is more important that we understand the big picture, not the pixels that make it up...that could all come later, once the issues raised by the rebellion had been dealt with, and God's original purpose was restored.

You are of course, free to believe whatever you wish.....I'll stick to what makes more logical sense to me.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You really understand your own scriptures you read.

Between Genesis 1:1 and the 1st half of verse 2:4, which is the 6-day of creation, this is just creation myth, which have nothing to do with Adam and Eve or the Garden of Eden.

You clearly know the order of this myth, because it spelled out what was created when. And animals that lived on land were created (1:24-25) before man and woman were first created (1:26-27). Man and woman were the last things he created (1:26-31); nothing here say that these humans were Adam and Eve.

From the second half of verse 2:4 to the end of this chapter (2:24), is completely different creation myth.

In this 2nd myth, there were no plants and no animals when the earth and sky were created:


Note what I have highlighted in red: "no plants" and "no herbs".

In the next verse (2:7), god created man from dust:


Plants weren't created (compare 2:5 and 2:8-9) until he created man (Adam) first. God didn't create plants until after man became alive in 2:7:


And then, he only created land animals and birds (2:19) after he created man, first (2:7) and then plants, second (2:8-9):


So here in Genesis 2, this version say

1. man (2:7) was created first
2. ...before plants (2:8-9)
3. ...and land animals and birds (2:19).
4. And woman or Eve was created last, of course.

But in Genesis 1, the order of creation were

1. plants (1:11-12), first, on the 3rd day,
2. ...follow by birds and sea life (1:20-22) on the 5th day,
3. ...and on the 6th day, land animals (1:24-25) were created...
4. ...before man and woman (1:26-27).

That's 2 different myths with 2 different orders of what were created when.

I've heard this misunderstanding before. Chapter 2 is simply a recap. The couple in chapter 1 are the same as found in chapter 2. We know this because again the Bible explains itself, in Genesis 3:20. No other woman, but Eve. And yet the command to multiply was given in Genesis 1:28. So, they were the same couple.

Yes, I do know the Bible.....I've been accurately taught, thank you.

 

[Deeje]

Deeje, are you actually saying that water is so amazing that it has to have been made by a god?

Do you think water just "happened"? Did it evolve from something? Does the fact that it makes up a huge percentage of all living things as well as the planet itself mean that a Creator did not make it?

Please explain water.....and please tell us what would happen if there was no salt in the oceans, and if water froze the way all other liquids do.

 

[Deeje]

You've painted yourself into a corner again. If complexity has to be designed, and the god you believe in is complex, then god must also be designed. That is where that line of logic leads you. Again.

Well I am sorry but the person we call "God" is not a biological being, so unless you have information about his molecular makeup, (if he has one) I can't really help you there. He is not a human.....you get that.....right?

 

[ArtieE]

Do you think water just "happened"? Did it evolve from something? Does the fact that it makes up a huge percentage of all living things as well as the planet itself mean that a Creator did not make it?

Please explain water...

Read this amazing article! Scientists Discover The Oldest, Largest Body Of Water In Existence--In Space

 

[Deeje]

Read this amazing article! Scientists Discover The Oldest, Largest Body Of Water In Existence--In Space

Ummm, what is this supposed to prove? Did I ever say that it was impossible for water to exist elsewhere?

There is certainly no water on any of the other planets in our solar system.....but that is more than likely because earth was specially prepared for habitation by living, breathing creatures of infinite variety.

Frankly, we have no idea what future plans God has for the vast universe out there. He may well have intentions to eventually inhabit all of it.....I'm sure we will find out one day.

I asked you to tell us what would happen if the ocean waters were not salty?
And what would happen if water froze in the same manner as other liquids? Were the questions too difficult?

 

[Deeje]

You really understand your own scriptures you read.

Yes, we do.

How stupid would we be to believe in something we knew nothing about? Its what we study all the time.

 

[ArtieE]

Ummm, what is this supposed to prove? Did I ever say that it was impossible for water to exist elsewhere?

There is certainly no water on any of the other planets in our solar system.....

Seriously Deeje? There are 23 places we've found water in our solar system so far. 23 Places We've Found Water in Our Solar System

 

[Deeje]

Seriously Deeje? There are 23 places we've found water in our solar system so far. 23 Places We've Found Water in Our Solar System

There is nothing like earth though is there.....this "jewel in space" is unique in our neck of the woods.

According to your link...."Last week brought the news that Enceladus likely has a warm salty ocean, and that liquid water lurks beneath the surface of Ganymede." Hmmmmm there is that word again.

What about this part....? "It seems there are few places in the solar systems without some amount of water, whether liquid or solid. There's even a small amount of water vapor on Venus, something like 20 parts-per-million. And every time a source of liquid water is found or suggested, it brings up the chances of life on that world because of the way water acts as a solvent – facilitating the metabolic processes at the most basic level of life."

"It seems like"..."every time a source of liquid water is found or suggested, it brings up the chances of life..."

Read what your link is really saying....

C'mon....this is just airy fairy conjecture again......heard it all before.

Still waiting for answers to my questions......

Are you avoiding them?

 

[ArtieE]

There is nothing like earth though is there.....this "jewel in space" is unique in our neck of the woods.

Depends on what you mean with "neck of the woods". There's an estimated two billion planets in our galaxy alone capable of supporting life.

 

[ArtieE]

Still waiting for answers to my questions......

Are you avoiding them?

You have an endless supply of silly statements and questions like asking me whether I think water happened or evolved and "explain water". I have to select out the silliest ones.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well I am sorry but the person we call "God" is not a biological being, so unless you have information about his molecular makeup, (if he has one) I can't really help you there. He is not a human.....you get that.....right?

So what? Why does god have to be biological in order for logic to work?

I don't think the god you believe in even exists in the first place. I'm just following your assertions to their logical conclusions, since you don't seem to be able to do so.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

There you go! It needs to be created. That requires intelligence, does it not?

It does not. It can be done through natural processes.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is nothing like earth though is there.....this "jewel in space" is unique in our neck of the woods.

According to your link...."Last week brought the news that Enceladus likely has a warm salty ocean, and that liquid water lurks beneath the surface of Ganymede." Hmmmmm there is that word again.

What about this part....? "It seems there are few places in the solar systems without some amount of water, whether liquid or solid. There's even a small amount of water vapor on Venus, something like 20 parts-per-million. And every time a source of liquid water is found or suggested, it brings up the chances of life on that world because of the way water acts as a solvent – facilitating the metabolic processes at the most basic level of life."

"It seems like"..."every time a source of liquid water is found or suggested, it brings up the chances of life..."

Read what your link is really saying....

C'mon....this is just airy fairy conjecture again......heard it all before.

Still waiting for answers to my questions......

Are you avoiding them?

It looks like you need to read it again - without just seeing the words you want to see. If you're unclear about what is being talked about, click on some links and look around - there are some good links in that article to primary sources. In fact, the part you highlighted above that you think is so funny for some reason, provided a direct link to this scientific article: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7542/full/nature14262.html discussing hydrothermal activities within Enceladus with accompanying data. And if that's not enough, as any good scientific article will do, the authors have provided a list of the 53 previously conducted studies they had referenced in carrying out their analysis. Because as previously mentioned, new knowledge is often built upon earlier knowledge. Then there's a link to an article discussing last year's discovery by the Cassini orbiter of "125-mile-high geysers spraying from the south pole of Enceladus" with discussion about the available data and reasons that it is likely that there is water on Saturn's moon. Yes, Saturn's Moon Enceladus Has an Ocean
There's nothing to laugh at here and plenty to read and learn.


By all means, look at it with a critical eye, but for goodness sake, at least read up on the available data and inform yourself first.


Honestly, I've never encountered another human being so averse to knowledge and learning. I don't get it. If we all carried on this way we'd still be living in the Bronze Age.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I can see that every creature has the vision it needs....

I am reading this through lenses that correct my perfect vision that is designed perfectly for my needs..... right...yeah...yup. Dwell on that a moment.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am reading this through lenses that correct my perfect vision that is designed perfectly for my needs..... right...yeah...yup. Dwell on that a moment.

My 8 year old nephew has an astigmatism. Oops.

 

[Deeje]

Depends on what you mean with "neck of the woods". There's an estimated two billion planets in our galaxy alone capable of supporting life.

I was referring to our immediate 'neighborhood'.....our solar system. All those guys orbiting the sun with us.
Out of all those planets....Earth is the 'Goldilocks' one. Are there other 'Goldilocks' planets out there.....perhaps, but I do not believe that they are inhabited.....not yet anyway.

According to the Bible, (my source of reference) the issues involved in the abuse of free will needed to be sorted out before the Creator's purpose for this small planet could come to its logical conclusion. After that...the sky's the limit!