Off Topic
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Evidence that substantiates ANYTHING that happened in the Bible.
- Thread starter Quad4_72
- Start date
Off Topic
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Already did, and gave two links to support my response.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Well, no you did not.
Go back and look at the sequence (I even did a graphic for you). Just one detail serves to point out the silliness of saying the two accounts are just "different amounts of detail": What is the order of the creation of all the creatures (animals) including man, in the first account? What is the order of the creation of man, then all the other creatures, then woman, in the second account?
The two creation myths were redacted, from at least 4 sources, into at least two oral traditions. The do not harmonize...so: which one is "right"?
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Codswallop. You just made up some garbage about one account being a more detailed version and then completely ignored every post that points out that this isn't even remotely true.
Also, it's a red flag that the above no information post doesn't contain a link to the response you're claiming to have made.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
They all seem to me like fine pieces of evidence that the bible is either a fairytale in its own right or has been ripped off holus-bolus from other fairytales.
Your response seems to indicate nothing more than the fact that you are completely unable to refute anything in the links provided.
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
Your previous replies did not address the following contradictions:
The two contradictory creation accounts. 1:1-2:3, 2:4-25
First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3)
Genesis 1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.)
Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25)
Genesis 2:18-19 (Humans were created before the other animals.)
First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3)
Genesis 1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)
Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25)
Genesis 2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)
How do you reconcile these contradictions, when it's clear that one cannot be a clarification of the other?
This link goes into a lot of the contradictions in the Bible.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/contra_list.html
Last edited:
You have the right to your opinion but the two links I already brought in earlier in the thread addressed the issues above. If you didn't like those links here are two more things to consider from Josh McDowell's book "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict" pages 496 and 497.
Quote:
An essential difference in the two accounts must be appreciated: Genesis 1 describes the creation of the world, while Genesis 2 details and further describes the specific creation of Adam and of his immediate environment in the Garden of Eden. This is highlighted by the introductory phrase in Genesis 2:4, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh Elohim made the earth and the heavens." Throughout Genesis the phrase "these are the generations" occurs nine other times, each time introducing an account of the off-spring descended from a specific ancestor. This would then indicate that in the verses following Genesis 2:4, we will find an account of the offspring of the heavens and earth after the initial creation has taken place. And that is just what we find here in the case of Adam and Eve (v. 7: "Yahweh Elohim formed man of dust from the ground"). (Archer, SOTI, 118)
Quote:
Orr explains it this way: "To the beginnings of things, how constantly it is alleged that "we have two contradictory accounts of the creation. It is certain that the narratives in Gen. i.-ii. 4 and chap. ii. 4 ff. are quite different in character and style, and view the work of creation from different standpoints. But they are not "contradictory"; they are, in fact, bound together in the closest manner as complementary. The second narrative, taken by itself, begins abruptly, with manifest reference to the first: "In the day that Jehovah Elohim made earth and heaven" (ver. 4). It is in truth a misnomer to speak of chap. ii. as an account of the "creation" at all, in the same sense as chap. i. It contains no account of the creation of either earth or heaven, or of the general world of vegetation; its interest centers in the making of man and woman, and everything in the narrative is regarded from that point of view." (orr, POT, 346-47)
Last edited:
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Does it? OK let's see what you have to say.
And a plain flat out lie for starters. Genesis 1 describes the creation of man. It's in the bible. Do you believe you can simply make stuff up and nobody will check?
From Genesis 1:
You are wrong from the outset.
I do not take a biblical apologist attempt to rationalise these contradictory accounts seriously.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Why do you keep insisting that posts like the one to which you're attempting a response here are simply matters of opinion?
They are direct and contradictory quotes from the very book that you're trying defend as a fount of truthiness.
halleyscomet's post contains no expression of an opinion at all - simply an observation, such as anyone can make, that the two accounts you're claiming to be the same are in fact radically different.
It's already been considered and the verdict is that two different stories by (at least) two different authors have been mashed together in an attempt to create the illusion that
The crap that you've quoted above from a book you've never read doesn't even attempt to address the contradictions mentioned by myself, halleyscomet and many others.
* Edit
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
In your parroting of other sources you have apparently forgot to read your source and see if it works. Don't you see that the two versions of the story, in a work that is claimed to be literally true, don't place the events in the same order or of the same nature ?
In other words, let's ignore the evidence and try to talk our way out of this.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
DOC does this all the time.
He searches online as best he's able for a few key words from the arguments other people present and posts whatever result he thinks answers those arguments, all the while pretending to have read the books from which he pretends to be quoting.
He never seems to realise how obvious it is that this is what he's he's done, not even bothering to remove the footnotes and other obscure references to the sources included in the excerpts from the extracts that he finds in the quotes mined from the cherry-picked summaries that appear in the book reviews and apologist blogs that his clumsy googling turns up.
Presactly.
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
I'll snip everything after your first lie. It isn't opinion, DOC. There are two objectively different creation accounts and they are objectively contradictory. Others have demolished that apologist idiocy you posted. The question before you isn't whether they are contradictory or not. They objectively are. The question is:
Since the two creation accounts are objectively contradictory, doesn't at least one of them have to be wrong?
Answer the question in bold, DOC. Don't try to make a different question.
Last edited:
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
DOC:
What you do not seem to realize is that the very fact that you need apologymnastics to even make it seem as if you can claim that the two creation myths (gathered from at least four different sources, and collected into at least two different oral traditions, for at least two different reasons) can even be pretended to be the harmonizable.
To say nothing of the apologymnastics needed to colorably claim that either of the two non-parallel creation myths "supports" or "agrees with" ToE, or any other science discipline.
Or that there is evidence that substantiates either of the recorded myths.
What you do not seem to realize is that the very fact that you need apologymnastics to even make it seem as if you can claim that the two creation myths (gathered from at least four different sources, and collected into at least two different oral traditions, for at least two different reasons) can even be pretended to be the harmonizable.
To say nothing of the apologymnastics needed to colorably claim that either of the two non-parallel creation myths "supports" or "agrees with" ToE, or any other science discipline.
Or that there is evidence that substantiates either of the recorded myths.
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
When my mom was teaching college freshman English, she had a term paper turned in that had been quoted verbatim from one source. This became obvious when one paragraph opened with "As we have seen in Chapter 11..."
