Genesis 2

[captainbryce]

Concerning the new heavens and new earth which GOD is to create along with the "new Jerusalem" Rev.21:22-23, "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof."

The key words here are "CONCERNING THE NEW HEAVENS AND THE NEW EARTH". Genesis 1 and 2 do not apply to a description of the "new" heavens or the "new" earth, it applies to the old one (which we know is lit by the sun). Genesis 2:16 establishes that the purpose of the sun is to govern the light of the day. So while this may not apply to the new earth, it does apply to the current one.

It wasn't time to create the sun in GOD's order of creating. That came later in the sustaining of a source for a continuing light. God is the "light " of the world.

Again, NOT LOGICAL. God "separated" the light from the darkness. He did not "separate" himself!

 

[captainbryce]

The part I already pointed out to you. I don't like to repeat myself.

Fair enough. What you said didn't make any sense the first time you said it, so there is no reason for me to assume that it might make sense if you repeat it.

It's the plain reading of the text.

No, clearly it isn't. It's your interpretation of it, nothing more!

 

[captainbryce]

You're joking, right?

No. Are you?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Hi Thief,Yes, Chapter two gives more details of mankind and their functions in the newly made earth.



Hi FM, Adam and Eve were "mankind" at that time---they were not fish, fowl, not beast.

Since they were "mankind" and no "off-spring" had been born, their punishment and the curse which accompanied the sentence affected all that they were given dominion over.

You realize that Thief is saying that Mankind was created (genesis chapter 1) and then a man was selected and modified (chapter 2)

 

[sincerly]

So a god didn't know about the moon not being a light, a god didn't know about reflection?

Hi Outhouse, Yes, those two "bodies" which were to "rule the day and the night" were well known to GOD. HE Made them for their specific purpose. Wisely using the Light from the one to give a softer glow by the other.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Hi Outhouse, Yes, those two "bodies" which were to "rule the day and the night" were well known to GOD. HE Made them for their specific purpose. Wisely using the Light from the one to give a softer glow by the other.

That's not how the chapter said, though I guess you can interpret it as you want.

 

[outhouse]

Hi Outhouse, Yes, those two "bodies" which were to "rule the day and the night" were well known to GOD. HE Made them for their specific purpose. Wisely using the Light from the one to give a softer glow by the other.

Which god? El or Yahweh

Israelites wrote about both.

 

[nazz]

No, clearly it isn't. It's your interpretation of it, nothing more!

Yes. Pot meet kettle.

 

[captainbryce]

Yes. Pot meet kettle.

My interpretation can be justified by a consistent reading of all creation texts, as well as what the actual Hebrew terminology allows. Yours cannot!

 

[nazz]

My interpretation can be justified by a consistent reading of all creation texts, as well as what the actual Hebrew terminology allows. Yours cannot!

in your opinion

 

[captainbryce]

in your opinion

Okay, I'll stipulate to that.


But I do rather enjoy it when people challenge my interpretation.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
.(the soil, vegetation, animal life) Their source was an intelligent source and not just a "Big Bang Theory".

That is a theological guess with no credible evidence what so ever to back it up.

Hi Outhouse, No. That is a part of the Chapter 2 reporting/event as seen in (2:7), "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. "

Of itself, "nothing" is "nothing". Therefore, what I see came to be from a Source that had the intelligence to produce it. One can not have "energy"(for a big bang) without there being a source. Have you found that Source?

 

[outhouse]

Originally Posted by sincerly
.(the soil, vegetation, animal life) Their source was an intelligent source and not just a "Big Bang Theory".



Hi Outhouse, No. That is a part of the Chapter 2 reporting/event as seen in (2:7), "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. "

Of itself, "nothing" is "nothing". Therefore, what I see came to be from a Source that had the intelligence to produce it. One can not have "energy"(for a big bang) without there being a source. Have you found that Source?

that is not credible evidence

it is a book that contains mythology and was never intended to be a science or history book.

Creation myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A creation myth is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it.[2][3] By far the most well-known creation myth is the Genesis creation narrative.

So I ask you again. why do you discount knowledge through real education?

 

[sincerly]

that is not credible evidence

it is a book that contains mythology and was never intended to be a science or history book.

Creation myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A creation myth is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it.[2][3] By far the most well-known creation myth is the Genesis creation narrative.

So I ask you again. why do you discount knowledge through real education?

And you post "Wikipedia" as a credible source concerning Matters that are still being debated in/by their "editors"??????

While "Wikipedia" denounces the GOD of the Bible, it uses the history written therein. Sad.

 

[nazz]

"Wikipedia" denounces the GOD of the Bible

Say what? Wikipedia is written by ordinary people with all kinds of beliefs.

 

[outhouse]

And you post "Wikipedia" as a credible source concerning Matters that are still being debated in/by their "editors"??????

While "Wikipedia" denounces the GOD of the Bible, it uses the history written therein. Sad.

It does not denounce your god

It simply states what kind of message certain aspects are within theology.

Don't you think it is absurd to think ancient men did not use mythology?


You will not find anyone credible, that follows a literal reading of the OT. It wasn't ment to be read that way.

 

[outhouse]

Say what? Wikipedia is written by ordinary people with all kinds of beliefs.

It is a encyclopedia that can be edited to be corrected as new information becomes available.

One cannot post anything they wish, and have it remain.

 

[sincerly]

You realize that Thief is saying that Mankind was created (genesis chapter 1) and then a man was selected and modified (chapter 2)

Hi FM, Mankind and the land animals were created on the Sixth day. Chapter 1 was finished as all things were completed----even "to male and female created them"(vs27)
In Chapter 2, one finds the details of that week's creation listed following the establishing of the Seventh day of Creation as the Sabbath---Blessed and sanctified.

In those "generations" of the heavens and the earth when they were created/made."
It was the same Male/Adam that named the Animals on that sixth day that all were created. It was Adam/male from who Eve was surgically removed on the Sixth day and marriage/one flesh was established.

 

[sincerly]

It is a encyclopedia that can be edited to be corrected as new information becomes available.

One cannot post anything they wish, and have it remain.

Right, the "rules" placed by the ???? are why there is still areas of dispute concerning some topics and Religion is one of those where non-believers have clout.

 

[sincerly]

It does not denounce your god

It simply states what kind of message certain aspects are within theology.

Don't you think it is absurd to think ancient men did not use mythology?


You will not find anyone credible, that follows a literal reading of the OT. It wasn't ment to be read that way.

It reduces GOD to a "symbolic narrative"; Therefore; MYTH