Problems with the biblical Genesis story (split)

[wynn]

2 Actually it's not really an assumption when you consider the information about the cosmos which is contained withing Purana's which were written hundreds if not thousands of years before modern scientific development.

Right. And how much of it is scientifically valid?

What do you all think is going on here?


Does anyone believe that Jan is genuinely trying to make people understand things properly, in an effort to lead them to a better, happier life?


Or is it that Jan has ulterior motives, such as gaining pleasure from psychologically maligning others?

 

[Dywyddyr]

What do you all think is going on here?

Jan has decided to take another opportunity to display his gross ignorance, his bigotry and his unwillingness to listen.
Plus, of course, the ever-needed chance to display, yet again, his basic hypocrisy and dishonesty.

Does anyone believe that Jan is genuinely trying to make people understand things properly, in an effort to lead them to a better, happier life?

Of course not. All he's doing is highlighting the fact that he doesn't say what he means, and that he's "adept" at wriggling when pressed to make a point or defend one of his own claims.

Or is it that Jan has ulterior motives, such as gaining pleasure from psychologically maligning others?

I don't think he's that bright. I see it as him convincing himself that his comfortable ignorance is justified, mainly due to his ignorance encompassing the fact that he's too ignorant to realise how ignorant he is.
It's Dunning-Kruger in action!

 

[gmilam]

What do you all think is going on here?

Jan is a troll.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan is a troll.

No I'm not!


jan.

 

[Arioch]

@Signal --

I'm not sure which. For all we know she could be a Poe.

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

You just dodged it again.

What are the two great lights that God made, Jan? And why is their creation mentioned under the 4th day?

You insist on saying they were created on the fourth day, yet it doesn't say that they were created.
I have not dodged the question, I have read the text and taken literally what it says.

''God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.''

Note that it doesn't say ''God CREATED two great lights'', like it say's God CREATED the heavens and the earth.

To add to I linked you the meaning of the word used in text (as far as we know), which not only say's nothing about creation ex-nihilo, but includes the
verbs ''to do'', ''to work'', and ''to act''.
There must be, at least, a possibility that the lights weren't create ex-nihilo, and therefore the the plants not created before the sun and moon.

I don't think He ''created'' them then.

That's a completely tortured and non-literal reading of Genesis. You're going against your own advice to read Genesis literally.

On the contrary, it is a complete literal reading of Genesis as stated above.
To me, saying the lights were created on the fourth day, no matter what the words say, while using what the words say to justify that position, and not willing to review ones position, no matter what, is at the very least devicive.

Because the first chapter of Genesis is obviously a creation story. It talks constantly about God creating this and that.

Yea it is a creation story (in the begining God created the heavens and the earth..), but I think it is more of the pro-creative story of the generations of Adam.

Ok. Who was he commanding? Or to whom was he making his request?

His asociates, gods, goddesses, angels, and such.

I'm just going by a common-sense literal reading of Genesis - taking your advice.

Then why do you insist that the two lights were ''created'' on the fourth day, when it doesn't say that.

A literal reading means you use the words that are on the page.

You're the only one I have ever heard who has said anything different.

There are quite a few different ideas and interpretations of the bible that contradict the ''the instititutional'' one.

Why do I describe it as such? Because that's the accepted interpretation among both amateurs and experts on the matter.

But that's not what it says, and as such makes no sense, which is partly why there are alot groups and people out there who reject it.

Maybe so; maybe not. I don't see how science is at all relevant to a literal reading of Genesis.

Science is how we understand the world, genesis is partly about the creation of the world we live in, so it is obviously relevant.

Wouldn't it be easier for you to just accept that God made the plants before the Sun, even though that is in conflict with scientific understanding?

Yes.

It's not as if God couldn't keep the plants alive by his magic for a few days until the Sun was created.

I don't think God used ''magic'' in the sense that we know it.

Or do you have a desparate need for Genesis to be in accordance with science? Because clearly it is not.

By ''science'' I take it you mean ''modern science''?
No.
No more than the need for it to be in accordance with modern religion.

What you tend to get, with those intentions, are people/groups who have vested interests in using the text to back, justify, or validate their personal positions. A bit like what you're doing, by not accepting anything but the version which makes the scripture look like nonsense.


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

@Signal --

I'm not sure which. For all we know she could be a Poe.

What do you mean by Poe?
Port of entry? :bugeye:

It's quite rude to talk about someone while they are present,
as if they are not present.


jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You insist on saying they were created on the fourth day, yet it doesn't say that they were created.
I have not dodged the question, I have read the text and taken literally what it says.

''God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.''

Note that it doesn't say ''God CREATED two great lights'', like it say's God CREATED the heavens and the earth.

To add to I linked you the meaning of the word used in text (as far as we know), which not only say's nothing about creation ex-nihilo, but includes the
verbs ''to do'', ''to work'', and ''to act''.

And you continue to ignore (without reason) the fact that "make", "form" and "create" are used interchangeably in the Bible.

To me, saying the lights were created on the fourth day, no matter what the words say, while using what the words say to justify that position, and not willing to review ones position no matter what, is at the very least devicive.

Wrong.
As shown.

Then why do you insist that the two lights were ''created'' on the fourth day, when it doesn't say that. A literal reading means you use the words that are on the page.

Why do you insist on ignoring the fact that your differentiation is specious and unwarranted?

I'll leave the rest of your duplicity to James.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

And you continue to ignore (without reason) the fact that "make", "form" and "create" are used interchangeably in the Bible.

We don't know that as a fact.

If we assume it does, then the genesis makes no sense.
But if we use the words and the meanings offered by the lexicon, all of a
sudden it makes sense.



jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

We don't know that as a fact.

Another lie. You have already been linked to a relevant page AND shown an example (with regard to Adam) in this thread.

If we assume it does, then the genesis makes no sense.

Why? Because you can't face the fact that Genesis is inconsistent and self-contradictory? And in contradiction to reality?

But if we use the words and the meanings offered by the lexicon, all of a sudden it makes sense.

Also wrong, since you're having to put your own particular spin on the reading of it regardless.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Another lie. You have already been linked to a relevant page AND shown an example (with regard to Adam) in this thread.

Would that be the answersingenesis link?

If yes, please give an example which proves that the two words are intentionally interchangable.

Why? Because you can't face the fact that Genesis is inconsistent and self-contradictory? And in contradiction to reality?

Why would I be unable to face such a fact if it were true?
I have nothing to lose or gain if it is as you say.

Also wrong, since you're having to put your own particular spin on the reading of it regardless.

Since when does using the correct definitions of words become ones own particular spin, especially as I have not moved replace any words like some folk?


jan.

 

[billvon]

Another question for Biblical scholars:

Were livestock created before or after Man was created?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Would that be the answersingenesis link?

Yes. As you have been informed at least twice before.

If yes, please give an example which proves that the two words are intentionally interchangable.

What do you mean "intentionally" interchangeable?
Is this another diversion? Another obfuscation?
The quotes you have been given (at least twice) and that link clearly show the interchangeability.

Why would I be unable to face such a fact if it were true?

Because it would destroy your claim that Genesis should be read literally and is true.

I have nothing to lose or gain if it is as you say.

Apart from the above claims, no.

Since when does using the correct definitions of words become ones own particular spin, especially as I have not moved replace any words like some folk?

Correct definitions? Yet you have ALSO claimed that (for one of the Adam quotes) the word used is not the word meant: in other words you (YOU personally) have "decided" that, on that occasion at least, YOUR "interpretation" is correct despite your earlier claim that it should be read literally. You have denied the "correct definition" in favour of your particular spin.
Hypocrisy and deceit again.

I'm done with you, again. Your blatant dishonesty is sickening.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Yes. As you have been informed at least twice before.

And you, a scientist, and critical thinker, regard these statements
as proof of evidence that the words ARE used interchangably?
From an organisation who definately have a vested interest in saying this?

Tell me, did you just believe it because they said so, or did you use your
critical thinking skills to confirm it?

So, making a strong distinction between bara and asah in Genesis 1–2 is as unjustified as making a distinction between “create” and “make” in English ”

In the creation account (Gen. 1:1-2:3) both words are used in reference to ex nihilo creation events and both are also used in reference to things God made from previously created material.

What do you mean "intentionally" interchangeable?
Is this another diversion? Another obfuscation?

No, this is not obfuscating. One would think all due care and attention would
have gone into this obviously important document, and the information therein would need to be properly understood. So if the wording was interchangable, it would mean that not much importance is afforded to that part of the document.
But, it doesn't matter, I'm prepared to drop the word ''intentionally''.

The quotes you have been given (at least twice) and that link clearly show the interchangeability.

Those quotes, merely state that the words are interchangable, that amounts to nothing more than an opinion.

Because it would destroy your claim that Genesis should be read literally and is true.

I didn't say genesis was true.
And how can it destroy the claim to read genesis literally?

Apart from the above claims, no.

Wrong! I have nothing to lose from it.

Correct definitions? Yet you have ALSO claimed that (for one of the Adam quotes) the word used is not the word meant: in other words you (YOU personally) have "decided" that, on that occasion at least, YOUR "interpretation" is correct despite your earlier claim that it should be read literally. You have denied the "correct definition" in favour of your particular spin.
Hypocrisy and deceit again.

Then I suppose it was of no significance to you that the term ''create'' was used by the author, whereas ''make'' was used by God?

I'm done with you, again. Your blatant dishonesty is sickening.

I'm not dishonest Dyw, you are simply clinging to these ad-hominems to victimise me. You are the dishonest one.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I'm not dishonest Dyw, you are simply clinging to these ad-hominems to victimise me.

Since have previously shown where you have lied (in other threads besides this one) this is false.

You are the dishonest one.

Wrong.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Since have previously shown where you have lied (in other threads besides this one) this is false.

As I stated before ''you are simply clinging to these ad-hominems to victimise me''.

 

[AlexG]

How can anyone argue with Jan?

He will insist on a literal reading of scripture, but will then make up his own interpretation.

When presented with the actual words in his to-be-taken-literally scripture, he ignores them, or redefines them, or simply denies them.

It's a perfect tactic for arguing scripture. Jan can't lose because he will never acknowledge what's been said.

 

[arauca]

Another question for Biblical scholars:

Were livestock created before or after Man was created?

To my understanding the word " bassar " = livestock and beast are interchangeable,
(I am just a new student in Hebrew )

 

[Dywyddyr]

As I stated before ''you are simply clinging to these ad-hominems to victimise me''.

And, as I have said before: I have previously SHOWN where you have lied, and you not only failed to change your behaviour, you have repeatedly failed to acknowledge my posts that showed you lied. To the extent of of asking me, at least twice, to "show you that I wasn't just making it up".

 

[Pineal]

What do you all think is going on here?


Does anyone believe that Jan is genuinely trying to make people understand things properly, in an effort to lead them to a better, happier life?


Or is it that Jan has ulterior motives, such as gaining pleasure from psychologically maligning others?

I'll go charitable for the moment.

Something is being rapidly dismissed, perhaps with some weak arguments. Jan is not a Christian, but has an urge to point out some of the ways something is being dismissed on poor grounds. Once the defense gets rolling, it hardens into a position, so some weak arguments also come back. No one is backing down and ad homs are sprinkled in so it seems even more unjust to respond in a nuanced, good point here, but this point seems weak fashion. So nothing is acknowledged. Also the fact that Jan is not a Christian perhap warps the dynamic in ways that are hard to track and also given the climate, not likely to be acknowleged. Post three is the introduction of the ad hom into the thread.

but then this thread is not isolated, perhaps it was a fair ad hom. But a read of the first page shows a series of unresponded ad homs directed at Jan. If Jan deserves these, we are looking, in any case, as a poisoned situation, and going on the assumption that at a certain point some posters deserve regular ad homs aimed at them. But the dynamic is not going to be healthy even if Jan is the bad boy or girl 'really'. Time to step out the back of the bar, throw down, then come back in and hopefully be able to share a pint and forget discussions for a day or two.

Been on both sides of these kinds of dynamics.