I presume you mean "what's the evidence for this -- other than Genesis?"Interesting, but what's the evidence for this?
.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I presume you mean "what's the evidence for this -- other than Genesis?"Interesting, but what's the evidence for this?
.
I strongly suggest you look to Richard Elliot Friedman, and his book "Who Wrote the Bible." He will help you to understand why these texts show the differences (as well as the similarities) that they do.Here is what I am not suggesting but showing you. If you look at Genesis 7 you can see that there are two different types of creatures getting on the ark. They are those “after his kind” and those “wherein is the breath of life”. The Bible is clear on this distinction.
Genesis 7: (13-15) 13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; 14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. 15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
We see also the same distinction in both creation narratives. They are those “after his kind”
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
And those with the “the breath of life”
Genesis 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."
This distinction is not by chance. They are two different creations taking place here.
Nah. I'll take anything he's got. However, as it turns out---he has provided an answer---it's no less lame than I anticipated: see post 98.I presume you mean "what's the evidence for this -- other than Genesis?"
Well, I do understand jhwatts' need to make sense of the two accounts of Genesis no matter how screwball his concocted scenario has to be.
In any case, should I take this to mean you buddy-up with jhwatts and his two creations?
.
Ah, yes, thank you for pointing me to that post. I think that my advice to him about Friedman, a few minutes ago, is even more keenly needed.Nah. I'll take anything he's got. However, as it turns out---he has provided an answer---it's no less lame than I anticipated: see post 98.
.
I strongly suggest you look to Richard Elliot Friedman, and his book "Who Wrote the Bible." He will help you to understand why these texts show the differences (as well as the similarities) that they do.
You appear to have this bizarre notion that the Bible (or at least Talmud) was written down all at once, possibly by God, or possibly by one person (let's call him "Shlomo the Scribe") listening to heavenly dictation. Sorry, but that simply ain't how it happened. Friedman can seriously help you understand what you are presently completely deluded by.
Nah. I'll take anything he's got. However, as it turns out---he has provided an answer---it's no less lame than I anticipated: see post 98.
Why? what has the age of the books to do with anything? There are lots older ones that are still classics of human writing -- many of which are still held to be sacred , though perhaps not by you.I see you took the time to read some of the thread.
I realize the Bible wasn't written all at once and over a period of. Speaking of logical, I find it hard assume a book wrote in 1987 can completely capture and explain the origin of the content a collection of manuscripts that has existed on the earth for over 2000 years.
Hey, Even if I could I would never demand that anyone reply to my posts. Reply, don't reply as you see fit. My only suggestion is that you recognize that by putting out really bizarre comments and answers you're inviting criticism, cynicism, and possible derision. So comments such as mine shouldn't come as a surprise. They come with the territory you've chosen to play in.I'm working hard not to stoop to your level but I can't help to comment on the amount of useful and relevant content in your post. By the way, the content of your small phrases strikes me as profound. It would be nice if you could show some small strip of substance in your posts. These small minded sarcastic comments are hard for me to work with, but maybe it's not as difficult as I am making it. You simply just have nothing of any substance to offer in that small brain of yours. You hide behind sarcasm rather than say something with meaning. What and who you are is very clear.
There is no "must." Please see post 129.It's lamer.
Must I keep doing this. Your crayon must be dull again.
Why? what has the age of the books to do with anything? There are lots older ones that are still classics of human writing -- many of which are still held to be sacred , though perhaps not by you.
And Friedman's explanation of how those books came to be written is actually based on some pretty impressive scholarship -- by many, many scholars over many centuries. So I ask you -- have you read it? Are you interested? Or are you just going to -- as is usually the case -- ignore everything that does not cleave religiously to your thesis?
I agree; although, I think your talking to a deaf ear here. I believe he lacks the ability to reconcile his belief in the Bible with any possible errancy and is therefore compelled to devise explanations, no matter how outlandish, to save his faith................. I believe.Ah, yes, thank you for pointing me to that post. I think that my advice to him about Friedman, a few minutes ago, is even more keenly needed.
Okay. My apologies. I think I'm tracking with where you are heading here, and it's a lot deeper than I assumed. If I get you, I think you are saying that the different authors were writing the truth as they saw it, through their particular modalities they were operating out of in this time of history. That opens up a huge can of worms, one I'm more than happy to jump into with you discussing!1. There are two creation accounts. But the approach to this is not a "literal interpretation" as you are placing as a demand. (Please explain why this cannot be the? You can take a literal approach when you realize that the authors at that time conveyed what they thought in a different way than we do now, also translational errors, and degradation of manuscripts over time really have yielded a different document. This still doesn’t change their literal perception and how they recorded it. There are many differences from the original to deal with, people often assume by abstraction or symbolism a different message than the original literal intention.)
Does criticism, cynicism, and possible derision add value to a debate? They add no value and are therefore unnecessary and pointless.Hey, Even if I could I'd never demand that anyone reply to my posts. Reply, don't reply as you see fit. My only suggestion is that you recognize that by putting out really bizarre comments and answers you're inviting criticism, cynicism, and possible derision. So comments such as mine shouldn't come as a surprise. They come with the territory you've chosen to play in.
.
Nothing to debate, hence my conclusion, which may sway others away from your position, which I would regard as having value.Does criticism, cynicism, and possible derision add value to a debate? They add no value and are therefore unnecessary and pointless.
At least not to your understanding.Also realize, because you perceive something as bizarre doesn't mean that it is to all. You or others might find it bizarre because you don't fully understand it.
Are you under the impression because I or other doubters express our impressions of your contention that this prevents others from agreeing with you? All those "somebodys" are free to glean whatever useful fragment of information you care to present.This is frustrating because rather than having a thread on a specific topic that I and others could gain useful information and knowledge from, I have a thread packed full of useless garbage. I don't care who you are or what you believe, somebody could have gleaned some useful fragment of information from it.
Nothing to debate, hence my conclusion, which may sway others away from your position, which I would regard as having value.
At least not to your understanding.
Are you under the impression because I or other doubters express our impressions of your contention that this prevents others from agreeing with you? All those "somebodys" are free to glean whatever useful fragment of information you care to present. ()
.
Glad to have been of help.Skwim said:Are you under the impression because I or other doubters express our impressions of your contention that this prevents others from agreeing with you? All those "somebodys" are free to glean whatever useful fragment of information you care to present.
I see I have finally manged to squeeze some semi-meaningful content out of you.
Yes, but are there two different creations?
Are those of the dust of the earth and those made in the likeness of God different?
That's a good explanation of why they describe the same thing.