• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Genesis Enigma

The whole argument of The Genesis Enigma is a bunch of silly twaddle. Not only that, it's not even original. People have been trying to reconcile the biblical creation story with modern science for some time now. Why bother? Within Christianity there's already a way to dispense with any need to rationalize the Genesis creation story. It's called the doctrine of condescension. That is, God condescends to speak to us in the language we can understand. Thus, the Bible says the sun rises and sets, becuase it would have been pointless to tell people wtihout telescopes about the earth turning on it axis.

The creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 are actually rather perfunctory compared with the more elaborate creation stories of other ancient cultures. Even the specifics of Genesis 1 were derived from Marduk's creation ofthe cosmos out of the body of Ti'amat. Trying to turn this into science is a rather desperate attempt to make the Bible into something it is not.
 
Marduk said:
Genesis is planet forbidden
;)
Click to expand...

Nice one, Marduk.
So, if I have it right, Genesis has two different and incompatible versions of the Creation.
Which of the two version do the Creationists favour?
Obviously, the one Michelangelo painted.
But why?
 
pakeha said:
So, if I have it right, Genesis has two different and incompatible versions of the Creation.
Which of the two version do the Creationists favour?
Click to expand...

Creationists will hardly agree that they are incompatible, or that there are even two distinct creation accounts. The second is generally seen as giving more detail about the creation of man
 
"Until the first creatures on earth evolved eyes, in a sense, the sun and moon didn't exist. There was no creature on earth to see them, nor the light they cast."

So if I go blind from guiltless masturbation I can safely hike across Death Valley in August? Can't argue with that logic.
 
Very probable, lord Emsworth.
Yet I find the order of creation between the two accounts are strikingly different.
2:4This is the history of the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made earth and the heavens. 2:5No plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Yahweh God had not caused it to rain on the earth. There was not a man to till the ground, 2:6but a mist went up from the earth, and watered the whole surface of the ground. 2:7Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 2:8Yahweh God planted a garden eastward, in Eden, and there he put the man whom he had formed. 2:9Out of the ground Yahweh God made every tree to grow 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.
Click to expand...
Yet the first account says man was created last, on the sixth day.
In any case, could you point me to links or threads which treat the reconcilement of the two creation accounts, please? I'd like to learn more on the subject.
 
pakeha said:
Very probable, lord Emsworth.
Yet I find the order of creation between the two accounts are strikingly different.

Yet the first account says man was created last, on the sixth day.
In any case, could you point me to links or threads which treat the reconcilement of the two creation accounts, please? I'd like to learn more on the subject.
Click to expand...

You'll find plenty on apologetics websites. First thing from a causual google search:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c023.html
 
TimCallahan said:
The whole argument of The Genesis Enigma is a bunch of silly twaddle. Not only that, it's not even original. People have been trying to reconcile the biblical creation story with modern science for some time now. Why bother? Within Christianity there's already a way to dispense with any need to rationalize the Genesis creation story. It's called the doctrine of condescension. That is, God condescends to speak to us in the language we can understand. Thus, the Bible says the sun rises and sets, becuase it would have been pointless to tell people wtihout telescopes about the earth turning on it axis.

The creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 are actually rather perfunctory compared with the more elaborate creation stories of other ancient cultures. Even the specifics of Genesis 1 were derived from Marduk's creation ofthe cosmos out of the body of Ti'amat. Trying to turn this into science is a rather desperate attempt to make the Bible into something it is not.
Click to expand...

God wouldn't want to confuse anybody with the truth.
 
Thanks for the link, lord Emsworth.
I went there and read the thing, but the article didn't address my question whatsoever, rather explaining that the differing order of animals mentioned is due to one book of Genesis relates the order of animals according to how God created them and the other, the order in which Adam met them.
Hardly to the point, as you'll agree.
Which search terms did you use?
 
Last edited:
From TFA: Dr Andrew Parker: The Bible got everything right


You mean there actually is a sexually repressed, psychotic god out there who plans on torturing most people who lived for ever and ever because they didn't believe in Jesus, or did, but took a peeter up the pooper?


Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111 :jaw-dropp
 
Summary of the article in one question and answer:

You say the second ‘Let there be light…’ refers to the evolution of the eye but you edited out the rest of the line, which clearly refers to the Sun, Moon and stars. There’s no mention in Genesis of the evolution of the eye.
Um, OK. I’ll probably have a look at this in more detail again. The first page of the Bible doesn’t spell out the eye but it doesn’t spell out any of the science in detail.
Click to expand...


Sometimes I think there is a communications gap between IDiots and me larger than between a starfish and me. I cannot comprehend why people would choose to turn off their brains like that.
 
Lord Emsworth said:
You'll find plenty on apologetics websites. First thing from a causual google search:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c023.html
Click to expand...

I particularly loved this line "...Such meticulous details are the stuff of authentic eye-witness testimony..."

it's proof enough to me because it's detailed in a book that proves that the book is real.

I've read a lot of fiction, all of which have have meticulous details, but i wouldn't confuse any of them for eye-witness testimony.
 
Thanks for the heads up, volatile.
From the metro interview:
You say creationism is harmful to both religion and science. Why?
Creationism is totally unfounded. It is as dangerous as fundamentalism in other religions.

Creationists say evolution and the Big Bang are just theories. What do you think?
The problem with calling them theories is that anything can be called a theory. It doesn’t suggest the probability of it being right. On probability, you have creationism at something like 0.0001 per cent and evolution at 99.9999 per cent so it’s not fair to put them in the same category.

You criticise atheism because you think it’s disturbing to believe there’s no God or heaven. Just because those things might be comforting doesn’t make them true, does it?
No. But what I’m saying is that if the evidence doesn’t necessarily point one way or another, perhaps we’re better off with religion.
Click to expand...

The comments are worth reading as well.
 
Beerina said:
From TFA: Dr Andrew Parker: The Bible got everything right

You mean there actually is a sexually repressed, psychotic god out there who plans on torturing most people who lived for ever and ever because they didn't believe in Jesus, or did, but took a peeter up the pooper?

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111 :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...
Well, that was a new approach, and I must admit it got me chortling. I had to read it twice before I realized that you weren't positing the peter up Jesus' pooper ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom