Evidence that substantiates ANYTHING that happened in the Bible.

[DOC]

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)...

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...

Genesis 1 just gives a couple of verses to man's creation on Day 6 out of the 7 days talked about, whereas Genesis 2 is basically about Day 6 and man.

http://www.gotquestions.org/two-Creation-accounts.html

 

[abaddon]

Genesis 1 just gives a couple of verses to man's creation on Day 6 out of the 7 days talked about, whereas Genesis 2 is basically about Day 6 and man.

http://www.gotquestions.org/two-Creation-accounts.html

Rubbish. Gen 1 directly disagrees with Gen 2. You cannot dance around it.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Genesis 1 just gives a couple of verses to man's creation on Day 6 out of the 7 days talked about, whereas Genesis 2 is basically about Day 6 and man.

http://www.gotquestions.org/two-Creation-accounts.html

...about which Gen 1 ff has the order, the world, the animals, then man and woman together; while Gen 2 ff has the order, the world, the garden, man, the animals, woman. if nothing else, the "creation" of humans is radically different.

Are you really saying that it is mere opinion that would support that the series, A, B, C, D, E, F, 1, 2...

...is the same series as 1, A, B, C, D, E, F, 2...

just "at a different level of detail"?

The two creation myths were collected from at least four sources into at least two different oral traditions, for at least two different reasons. They do not agree with each other, and neither agrees with science.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Genesis 1 just gives a couple of verses to man's creation on Day 6 out of the 7 days talked about, whereas Genesis 2 is basically about Day 6 and man.

http://www.gotquestions.org/two-Creation-accounts.html

Answer the question, DOC.

 

[Akhenaten]

Genesis 1 just gives a couple of verses to man's creation on Day 6 out of the 7 days talked about, whereas Genesis 2 is basically about Day 6 and man.

Red herring!


Whatever you and your apologist du jour want to describe as the subject of the two chapters, this is what they actually say:

If Genesis 1 says

²⁵ And God made the beasts of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

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.

²⁷ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.​

and Genesis 2 says:

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.

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 the name thereof.​

then they both can't be right.

Sequence in Genesis 1:

Cattle and other critters then man and woman together.​

Sequence in Genesis 2:

Man then critters then woman.​

You can flap your arms about and try to change the subject as much as you like but the contradictions will remain.

 

[Belz...]

Genesis 1 just gives a couple of verses to man's creation on Day 6 out of the 7 days talked about, whereas Genesis 2 is basically about Day 6 and man.

Admit it: you WANT this to be true, and will therefore ignore the differences and contradictions in order to maintain your belief.

 

[DOC]

Admit it: you WANT this to be true, and will therefore ignore the differences and contradictions in order to maintain your belief.

So you and some others in here believe the Jews (who are known to be some pretty smart people) were so dumb back then they believed in a creation account for over 1000 years that had its facts screwed up in the first 2 pages?

 

[DrDave]

So you and some others in here believe the Jews (who are known to be some pretty smart people) were so dumb back then they believed in a creation account for over 1000 years that had its facts screwed up in the first 2 pages?

I know of one person who is so dumb that they believe in it even today, despite the fact that it had its facts screwed up in the first 2 pages.

 

[dafydd]

So you and some others in here believe the Jews (who are known to be some pretty smart people) were so dumb back then they believed in a creation account for over 1000 years that had its facts screwed up in the first 2 pages?

Faith is blind.

 

[Akhenaten]

So you and some others in here believe the Jews (who are known to be some pretty smart people) were so dumb back then they believed in a creation account for over 1000 years that had its facts screwed up in the first 2 pages?

Why is that so strange?

There's at least one fundamentalist christian posting in this and other threads who to this very day has absolutely no idea of how the world came into being.


Ninja'd by DrDave.

 

[pakeha]

So you and some others in here believe the Jews (who are known to be some pretty smart people) were so dumb back then they believed in a creation account for over 1000 years that had its facts screwed up in the first 2 pages?

Hi, DOC.
Do you have some reason to think this particular creation myth is more 'right' than any others?
Other than the Jews believe it?

 

[Slowvehicle]

So you and some others in here believe the Jews (who are known to be some pretty smart people) were so dumb back then they believed in a creation account for over 1000 years that had its facts screwed up in the first 2 pages?

DOC: This is dishonest; as you would put it, a "red flag". I have told you before that the issue is not that the compilers, redactors, and editors of what has come to be called the "old testament" were, as you so elegantly put it, "dumb". The two accounts of "creation" are substantially different--no matter how much apologetic contortion you perform. The two stories were collected from (at least) 4 different sources, into (at least) two different oral traditions, for (at least) two different purposes. The two sequences cannot be made to harmonize with each other; nor can either be made to harmonize with our scientific understanding.

In the spirit of the OP, what evidence do you offer to substantiate that either of the contradictory creation myths in Genesis actually happened??

Had you ever done more than "scan 30%" of the bible, you would know that the two creation myths are neither the only, nor the most glaring, contradiction raised by trying to pretend that all of the bible must be literally true.

 

[zooterkin]

So you and some others in here believe the Jews (who are known to be some pretty smart people) were so dumb back then they believed in a creation account for over 1000 years that had its facts screwed up in the first 2 pages?

Which particular 1000 year period are you talking about?

 

[X]

In the spirit of the OP, what evidence do you offer to substantiate that either of the contradictory creation myths in Genesis actually happened??

Had you ever done more than "scan 30%" of the bible, you would know that the two creation myths are neither the only, nor the most glaring, contradiction raised by trying to pretend that all of the bible must be literally true.

This.
Read it, apologists. And answer it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

So you and some others in here believe the Jews ...

I'm going to keep snipping your posts right after the first lie. That should shorten them up considerably.

DOC, since the Bible contains two objectively contradictory creation accounts, doesn't that mean that at least one of them must be wrong according to the law of non-contradiction?

 

[Belz...]

So you and some others in here believe the Jews (who are known to be some pretty smart people) were so dumb back then they believed in a creation account for over 1000 years that had its facts screwed up in the first 2 pages?

Belz...'s first law of non sequiturs, DOC. Donc ever start your posts with 'so...' followed by your estimate of what others are saying. Not only is your post a strawman and non sequitur, it's also a dodge because you are trying to avoid answering my point.

The two chapters are objectively and obviously contradictory because the sequence of events is different and irreconcilable. I'm simply asking you to acknowledge that.

 

[halleyscomet]

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)

I remember reading an earlier edition of McDowell's book back when I was still a hard core, Evangelical, creationist. Frankly, I found it an embarrassing volume then. It was a salve so the faithful could read comforting words, not an actual attempt to address the arguments. I remember reading it and imagining him condescendingly standing over me saying "there there, don't worry about all those nasty things non-Christians say. The Bible is true, I assure you it is," without ever giving me a reason to take him seriously. On the bright side, it motivated me to write my OWN defense of Christianity, starting with Creationism. The first chapter of that work became my college entry essay. I even got credit for a few general education courses because of the essay, so in a roundabout way, McDowell was useful to me in my younger days.

Back to the quote you posted, instead of addressing the contradiction, Josh McDowell appears to be creating a contorted rationalization that essentially says words don't mean what you think they mean because there are genealogies in the text after the creation amount. It's the apologetic equivalent of Clinton's "That depends on what the definition of 'is' is." Another way to summarize his defense of the contradiction is "Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"

So you and some others in here believe the Jews (who are known to be some pretty smart people) were so dumb back then they believed in a creation account for over 1000 years that had its facts screwed up in the first 2 pages?

Nope. You are ignorantly applying your failure to comprehend scripture to the culture that wrote it. Most the Jews I know take the account as metaphorical. Based on what I've learned from assorted rabbis over the years, most Jews throughout history took the Genesis account as a story, a parable god wanted us to hear, but not an exact, literal truth. When you start off seeing the text as a story for our edification, inconsistencies such as the day upon which man was created don't really matter that much.

The Jews who DO take the account literally not only admit there's a contradiction, but created an elaborate explanation for it.

Here is a far more competently written and argued take on the contradictions in Genesis 1 and 2. I suggest you read it if you wish to defend a divine origin for the Bible without embarrassing yourself.

In the Beginning: Two Stories of Creation by Doug Linder (2004)

Frankly, it's not hard to do apologetics better than Josh McDowell. Quoting him to support an argument is like holding up Adam Sandler as the pinnacle of comedy of the 20th and 21st century. True, you might find a few intoxicated head trauma cases who agree with your argument, but most people with a fully functioning frontal lobe are going to wonder where your caretaker is, how you got your helmet off and when you'll announce you can count to Potato.

 

[marksman]

So you and some others in here believe the Jews (who are known to be some pretty smart people) were so dumb back then they believed in a creation account for over 1000 years that had its facts screwed up in the first 2 pages?

No. Apparently you believe that the ancient Jews were literalists, rather than a people who understood that these stories were meant metaphorically as moral lessons, not science texts. Biblical literalism is a relatively recent phenomenon.

 

[TimCallahan]

What is particularly ironic about creationism is that, together, the creation stories of Genesis amount to a perfunctory introduction to the patriarchal tales. The biblical creation stories, along with the those of the fall and the flood were something that had to be gotten through to get to the real meat of the matter.

Now, as to the Jews publishing contradictory accounts of creation together, this would be an oddity were it not for the fact that these contradictory doublets occur through out not only the Pentateuch, as well through 1 Samuel and between the books of 1 and 2 Kings vs. 1 and 2 Chronicles.

Contradictory doublets are particularly common in the story of Joseph being sold into slavery in Egypt:

Gen. 37:21, 22 Reuben tells his brothers not to kill Joseph, just to throw him into a pit. Reuben intends to rescue him later

Gen. 37:25 - 27 Judah tells his brothers not to kill Joseph, but to sell him to the Ishmaelites.

Gen. 37: 28 Midianite traders find Joseph in the pit and sell him to the Ishmaelites, who take Joseph to Egypt.

Gen. 37:29 Reuben returns to the pit to rescue Joseph and is distressed to find the pit empty.

Gen. 37:36 The Midianites, who in verse 28 had sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites, sell Joseph in Egypt to Potiphar.

Gen. 39:1 Potiphar buys Joseph from the Ishmaelites - though Gen. 37:36 says he bought Joseph from the Midianites.

 

[SezMe]

So you and some others in here believe the Jews (who are known to be some pretty smart people) were so dumb back then they believed in a creation account for over 1000 years that had its facts screwed up in the first 2 pages?

I note that you immediately responded to the post above this one from Belz... but completely ignored the one immediately prior to that from Akhenaten which explicitly stated the problem which speaks directly to the thread topic. Please respond to post #1965.