People who try to reconcile the Bible and Darwinism are nuts.
If Evolution
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
You want to change the subject from the fact that the second creation story has a different order of creation and method of creation from the first.
No, I would prefer to stick with a discussion of the two creation stories and why you deny what the Bible actually says.
I am not the one who wants to force a literal reading of the first creation story and deny the text of the second. That is you.
Doesn’t the second creation story say man was formed before any plants had sprung up? Yes. So man was formed before the plants, which is different from the order of creation in the first creation story.
But if you are going to deny what the text actually says, we have no basis for discussion.
People who pretend the two creation stories don’t differ in order and method of creation are showing disrespect for the text and denying the truth.
They simply pretend the text doesn’t say what it does say, tramping the text under foot for the sake of their tradition of literalism and denial.
Second creation story from Gen 2 NRSV:
In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 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; but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.
Man was formed when no plants had sprung up.
There were no domesticated plants because there was no man to till the ground.
There were no wild plants because there was no rain.
This is different from the first creation story, which says the earth brought forth plants on Day 3 and man was created on Day 6.
Both cannot be literal history.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
This is "true" only in that it was the first of your deity's many great mistakes.
There was no purpose. Your deity could have chosen a different method not involving sacrificing himself to himself for a "sin" he already knew was going to happen.
He didn't. How can/does "god" die?
Yes, you denied what the text clearly says.
Since you will not recognize what Genesis 2 actually says, we don’t have a basis for discussion.
A literal reading of Genesis is unnecessary to the good news of Jesus Christ.
Jesus invited people to follow Him before the cross.
A position on this topic is not necessary to choose to follow Jesus.
6days’ unreasonable denial of the reasonableness of viewing the first chapters of Genesis as something other than literal history should not be a deterrent to following Jesus.
Look at the text:
Second creation story from Gen 2 NRSV:
In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 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; but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.
6days pretends this does not say that man was formed before the plants. So his views are unlikely to be credible in other matters.
This is the second creation story. The first is very different. Put back to back in the text, together they make a clear point that we are not to take these as literal history.
By the way, I liked the movie from your avatar. That feisty old woman at the end knew how to use a shotgun. Or perhaps I am recalling a different movie.
6days
New member
Haha..... You keep saying that you have no basis for discussion. Why not form some basis to support your position?
When you just keep repeating that you have no basis..... that is obvious, but not very interesting. In TOL, the idea is that you have an opinion with some type of basis.
So..... since you have no basis for your argument..... Bye.
For anyone else who is interested, Genesis 1 and 2 are totally consistent with each other. The first chapter provides the order of creation over the course of six days. The second chapter zero's in on day six...specifically on humanity. / Adam and Eve.
In chapter 1 we are told God created vegetation on day 3. Specifically we are told God creates grass (deshe’), seed-yielding herbs (‘eseb mazria zera), and fruit trees (ets pariy).
Youngs Literal Translation says "And God saith, `Let the earth yield tender grass, herb sowing seed, fruit-tree (whose seed [is] in itself) making fruit after its kind, on the earth:' and it is so."
Now, in Chapter 2 we are told that 2 DIFFERENT types of plants did not yet exist when man was created...plant of the field / wild shrub / thorns (siah hassadeh) and “herb of the field / cultivated grain (eseb hassadeh).
Youngs Literal Translation says " and no shrub of the field is yet in the earth, and no herb of the field yet sprouteth, for Jehovah God hath not rained upon the earth, and a man there is not to serve the ground"
Genesis 2 compliments Chapter 1. God's Word is never contradictory. Of course there was no cultivated grains or fields before man... and Scripture also tells us that thorns were a result of man's sin.
You are mistaken.
Again, you are mistaken.
So, this passage isn't completely refuting what you just said?
Spoiler
Three times Jesus asked if there was any other way for Him to redeem mankind. But there wasn't. The Cross was the only way to reconcile the world to Him.
Jesus' sacrifice was so that the demands of justice could be met.
Not just "a sin." He died to cleanse all sin.
Are you attempting to make an argument against Calvinism here? Because I'm an open theist, who believes that God is a risk taker, who took a risk in creating a creature who could choose to rebel against Him.
As I said above, He did.
Please, use the capital "G" when speaking of the Creator of the universe.
Death is separation.
Physical death is separation of body and spirit.
Spiritual death is separation from God.
Jesus died a physical death (He was separated from his physical body) and a spiritual death (He, God the Son, was separated from God the Father).
Death does not mean annihilation.
Yes, the two kinds of plants — wild and domesticated — were not growing when man was formed in the second creation story.
Yet, in the first creation story, every kind of vegetation came forth before man was created:
Then God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it." And it was so.12 The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
So, once again, you contradict the Bible and deny what it says.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
No, I'm not.
Again, no, I'm not.
Nope. "God" being "god" could have done ANYTHING; right? Why your particular personal concept of deity chose an extreme act of violence speaks volumes about his "nature".
"God" cannot die, so, there wasn't much of a "sacrifice". Christians have a rather peculiar understanding of "justice".
... another abysmal failure.
NOT just Calvinism...
Everyone has their own problems. Don't try to make your problem my problem.
I notice "his" mysterious ways led "him" to attempt a couple of do-overs. What would you call someone who does the same thing over and over again expecting a different result?
As I said above, "he" didn't.
If I should actually refer to such a deity, as apposed to the generic "god" as I've used throughout, I will be sure to do so.
Death, according to the common definition, is the end of life.
Physical death is the end of life.
"Spiritual death" is a religious Non Sequitur.
How Christians can deny being polytheists is... (drum roll)... a mystery.
By all measures that matter, yeah, it pretty much does.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
You're recalling a different movie. The movie is "Elmer Gantry", (avatar of) Burt Lancaster (best actor), with Gene Simmons and Shirley Jones (best supporting actress), from the book by Sinclair Lewis.
Yes, I thought I might be wrong.
I was thinking of The Night of the Hunter with Robert Mitchum.
I am not the one rewriting scripture; you are.
It is easy to see if you just answer the simple question: were plants already growing when man was formed or created?
If you answer yes, you are rewriting the second creation story.
If you answer no, you are rewriting the first creation story.
Either way, you are denying what the Bible says to fit your own belief system.
6days
New member
You either haven't read the answer...or don't understand it. YES, most types of plants were growing on day 3. Scripture mentions two types of plants that did not exist yet on day six. Once again....2003cobra said:
In chapter 1 we are told God created vegetation on day 3. Specifically we are told God creates grass (deshe’), seed-yielding herbs (‘eseb mazria zera), and fruit trees (ets pariy).
Youngs Literal Translation says "And God saith, `Let the earth yield tender grass, herb sowing seed, fruit-tree (whose seed [is] in itself) making fruit after its kind, on the earth:' and it is so."
Now, in Chapter 2 we are told that 2 DIFFERENT types of plants did not yet exist when man was created...plant of the field / wild shrub / thorns (siah hassadeh) and “herb of the field / cultivated grain (eseb hassadeh).
Youngs Literal Translation says " and no shrub of the field is yet in the earth, and no herb of the field yet sprouteth, for Jehovah God hath not rained upon the earth, and a man there is not to serve the ground"
Do you have basis for further discussion? I Thought you said you didn't??
As I said, you are rewriting the text of Genesis 1.You either haven't read the answer...or don't understand it. YES, most types of plants were growing on day 3. Scripture mentions two types of plants that did not exist yet on day six. Once again....
In chapter 1 we are told God created vegetation on day 3. Specifically we are told God creates grass (deshe’), seed-yielding herbs (‘eseb mazria zera), and fruit trees (ets pariy).
Youngs Literal Translation says "And God saith, `Let the earth yield tender grass, herb sowing seed, fruit-tree (whose seed [is] in itself) making fruit after its kind, on the earth:' and it is so."
Now, in Chapter 2 we are told that 2 DIFFERENT types of plants did not yet exist when man was created...plant of the field / wild shrub / thorns (siah hassadeh) and “herb of the field / cultivated grain (eseb hassadeh).
Youngs Literal Translation says " and no shrub of the field is yet in the earth, and no herb of the field yet sprouteth, for Jehovah God hath not rained upon the earth, and a man there is not to serve the ground"
Do you have basis for further discussion? I Thought you said you didn't??
Here is the text:
Then God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
The Bible says “plants yielding seeds of every kind” were brought forth on Day 3. You deny that. Wild shrubs and cultivated grains are plants yielding seed, and they are part of plants “of every kind.”
So you deny what the Bible says. You are now rewriting the first creation story to say this:
Then God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind no, make that some kinds, not all on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind no, make that some kinds, not all ...
So, no, you continue to deny the what the Bible actually says and you continue to rewrite the text.
So we have no basis for discussion. We can’t talk about what the Bible says when you keep rewriting it.
You do understand that “herb sowing seed” from YLT includes cultivated grain, don’t you? So what you thought was your evidence proves you are rewriting the text.
6days
New member
You did say that. You said other things also.2003cobra said:
That MAY be one paraphrase, but not common... and not accurate.2003cobra said:
Here are 22 other translations http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-11.htm p
I continue to deny your belief system.2003cobra said:
I understand that you want it to say that. As you were shown from the Hebrew there were three different categories of plants created on day 3 that did not yet exist on day 6. Eseb mazria zera was created on day three. Eseb hassadeh did not exist until sometime after man was created2003cobra said:
Your 'argument has no basis. Genesis 2 compliments and is consistent with Genesis 1. You are trying to create contradictions in God's Word where none exists.2003cobra said: