Genesis contradictions?

[sojourner]

Yes he is.

You don't have to talk about me as if I'm not here.
No, I'm not. It's called exegesis. Try it sometime. You might actually learn something.

He does not believe Adam to even have been a person, but instead a literary type. If that is not twisting I do not know what is.

"Twisting" entails manipulating reality. The reality here (which we understand through something called scholastic criticism) is that the Genesis story is allegorical. It was told, written, and edited as such. Therefore, in order to understand what the writers were telling us, we have to understand the genre they were using, which was...allegory. In allegory, characters are not actual people, but types. The name "Adam," isn't even a name -- it's a descriptor. The term in Hebrew "ha ' a - dam'" means, "the man." "Eve" isn't a name, either. It comes from the Hebrew hawwah, meaning, "to live."

Making the Genesis story something it is not, i.e., a history or science lesson, with a real man named "Adam," and a real woman named "Eve," is what has twisted reality.

 

[Enoch07]

Yes, because when someone posts anything longer than a one liner, you get lost in the comprehending of it.

I comprehend it fine, just as I imagine you comprehend mine. We just disagree with each other. You chose to take the low road and turn disagreement into incomprehension, and try to use it as an insult. Which is deplorable.

 

[McBell]

I comprehend it fine, just as I imagine you comprehend mine. We just disagree with each other. You chose to take the low road and turn disagreement into incomprehension, and try to use it as an insult. Which is deplorable.

It is painfully obvious that you do NOT comprehend...

Or are you saying that you are intentionally making strawmen?

Anyone reading your post #26, which is in reply to my post #25, can see that you either do not comprehend or you are intentionally making strawmen.
So.... Which is it?

 

[Enoch07]

Making the Genesis story something it is not, i.e., a history or science lesson, with a real man named "Adam," and a real woman named "Eve," is what has twisted reality.

If that is what you want to believe that Genesis is allegorical fine. But not all Christians view the Bible in the same way you do.

 

[sojourner]

I comprehend it fine, just as I imagine you comprehend mine. We just disagree with each other. You chose to take the low road and turn disagreement into incomprehension, and try to use it as an insult. Which is deplorable.

If you're disagreeing, you'll have to do a much better job of supporting your argument. So far, all you've given us is opinion and conjecture, without any real data to back up your claims. Do some scholarship. We don't care what you think or believe, as long as you can support your argument. But you're not doing that. You keep saying, "Just read it -- it's right there." I have read it -- more times than I care to count. I come up with something completely different. But at least I can support my argument with solid scholarship, which gives my argument credibility.

So far, your posts are coming off as incomprehension, rather than solid disagreement.

 

[sojourner]

If that is what you want to believe that Genesis is allegorical fine. But not all Christians view the Bible in the same way you do.

Most do. All should, because, after all, we want to be as real about our religion as we can be, don't we?

 

[Enoch07]

If you're disagreeing, you'll have to do a much better job of supporting your argument. So far, all you've given us is opinion and conjecture, without any real data to back up your claims. Do some scholarship. We don't care what you think or believe, as long as you can support your argument. But you're not doing that. You keep saying, "Just read it -- it's right there." I have read it -- more times than I care to count. I come up with something completely different. But at least I can support my argument with solid scholarship, which gives my argument credibility.

So far, your posts are coming off as incomprehension, rather than solid disagreement.

I listed scripture that clearly shows male and female was created on sixth day. Eve was not created till after the seventh day, also proven in scripture. This is proof all other races was created on the sixth day. Genesis 4: 16 &17 back it up even more. I have given plenty of evidence, it is your interpretation that differs from what the scripture actually says, not mine.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Most do. All should, because, after all, we want to be as real about our religion as we can be, don't we?

Assuming "we" means xantians; are you quite sure of that?

It seems that in context by "real" you mean conform to reality as reflect the real world.

Supernatural religion (of which xantanity is an example) is by definition NOT about the real world at all. It is about the UNreal world of imagination myth and superstition. Or allegory.

Like (gasp) that godless heathen Homer. Surely you don't to want to be associated with HIM?!

 

[sojourner]

I listed scripture that clearly shows male and female was created on sixth day. Eve was not created till after the seventh day, also proven in scripture. This is proof all other races was created on the sixth day. Genesis 4: 16 &17 back it up even more. I have given plenty of evidence, it is your interpretation that differs from what the scripture actually says, not mine.

This is a gross misreading. It's not "proven in scripture." Not a single, credible Biblical scholar would corroborate your interpretation, primarily because the Gen 1 and Gen 2 creation stories are widely considered to be completely different accounts by different writers. To cobble them together into one "scientific" account is to mistreat the texts.

You've given no evidence, because evidence is based upon what is "real." There's nothing "real" about the way you treat the texts.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

The Bible is part of the Tradition of the Church. Truth is transmitted by the Church through her documents, both canon and extra-canonical. Truth is, likewise transmitted through the acts of the Church and her members -- the building of and caring for relationships. In those Acts, the Church bears witness to God at work in us.
As I've said before, in other threads, we have a tripod upon which our doctrine is founded: Scripture, Tradition, and reason. There is a "sense of the community," through which truth is known and espoused, that is built upon this tripod.

You have me somewhat confused as to the term truth.
You seem to state that there are documents, there are actions and there is some form of (yet undefined) reasoning. And these three things are the truth or form the truth.
What truth would that be and how would one "know" that it is truth.

 

[sojourner]

Assuming "we" means xantians; are you quite sure of that?

It seems that in context by "real" you mean conform to reality as reflect the real world.

Supernatural religion (of which xantanity is an example) is by definition NOT about the real world at all. It is about the UNreal world of imagination myth and superstition. Or allegory.

Like (gasp) that godless heathen Homer. Surely you don't to want to be associated with HIM?!

Why did I know that you were going to show up here?
You're not trolling me, are you?:flirt:

We believe that the real world reflects a real God. Even you should know that there's a difference between myth and superstition.

BTW, weren't you aware that Heathens are not "godless?" They have plenty of gods -- and they'll be happy to tell you that. I knew a Heathen that worshiped Thor and Loki...

 

[Enoch07]

This is a gross misreading. It's not "proven in scripture." Not a single, credible Biblical scholar would corroborate your interpretation, primarily because the Gen 1 and Gen 2 creation stories are widely considered to be completely different accounts by different writers.

Again this is your opinion. So think whatever you want. I do not really care. The Bible is not only allegorical. Some of it is to be taken literally as well. Wisdom is knowing when it is being literal or allegorical.

 

[sojourner]

Again this is your opinion. So think whatever you want. I do not really care. The Bible is not only allegorical. Some of it is to be taken literally as well. Wisdom is knowing when it is being literal or allegorical.

Where's the wisdom in an "8th-day creation" of Eve?

Yes, some of it is to be taken literalistically. But not the creation myths.

 

[Enoch07]

Where's the wisdom in an "8th-day creation" of Eve?

Yes, some of it is to be taken literalistically. But not the creation myths.

So you believe Eve was created at the same time as Adam then?

 

[sojourner]

So you believe Eve was created at the same time as Adam then?

I don't believe "Adam" and "Eve" were created. I think the Biblical writers had something different in mind.

According to the J writer in chap 2, Eve was created out of a rib of Adam's, after Adam was created.
According to the P writer in chap 1, both were created simultaneously.

Obviously, the sources are different, and so are their theological understandings.

Both accounts are allegorical.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"BTW, weren't you aware that Heathens are not "godless?" They have plenty of gods -- and they'll be happy to tell you that. I knew a Heathen that worshiped Thor and Loki..."

Ah, but there is only ONE true god. As I am sure your fellow believer here will attest. To believe in ANY other - or none at all - is to be godless.:yes:

Yes, myth and superstition are NOT the same - except when that ARE!

(btw, don't flatter yourself. You are not THAT interesting that I should bother.)

 

[Enoch07]

I don't believe "Adam" and "Eve" were created. I think the Biblical writers had something different in mind.

According to the J writer in chap 2, Eve was created out of a rib of Adam's, after Adam was created.
According to the P writer in chap 1, both were created simultaneously.

Obviously, the sources are different, and so are their theological understandings.

Both accounts are allegorical.

Who is the J writer? Who is the P writer? What is the proof they are allegorical as opposed to literal?

 

[sojourner]

"BTW, weren't you aware that Heathens are not "godless?" They have plenty of gods -- and they'll be happy to tell you that. I knew a Heathen that worshiped Thor and Loki..."

Ah, but there is only ONE true god. As I am sure your fellow believer here will attest. To believe in ANY other - or none at all - is to be godless.:yes:

Yes, myth and superstition are NOT the same - except when that ARE!

(btw, don't flatter yourself. You are not THAT interesting that I should bother.)

For the Xian, that is true. For the Heathen, it's a different story. In the end, it really doesn't matter, for they are all human expressions of human understanding of Deity that is so large we cannot fully understand it.

Therefore, I welcome other expressions of Deity, so that I develop a larger picture.

Whew! Groupies are such a pain!

 

[sojourner]

Who is the J writer? Who is the P writer? What is the proof they are allegorical as opposed to literal?

There is a "four source" theory for Genesis. We find evidence of four different writers. Two are present in the creation myths. The "J source" is the Jahwist, (or Yahwist). This is the writer that refers to God by YHWH. The "P source" is the Priestly writer, exemplified by order and "rules."

Since the creation myths bear such great resemblance to the creation myths of other ancient religions, (in fact, our creation myths parallel the earlier Akkadian myth of Gilgamesh, Assyrian myth of Enuma Elish, and various Egyptian myths), paralleling them in almost every respect, it is thought that the Genesis stories are "rewrites" of these earlier myths. Ancient stories were not so much literal history (as in the way we write and tell stories about our past), as they are representational. That's just how they thought and related the stories. Therefore, the Genesis myths, coming from allegorical roots, are, likewise, allegorical in nature.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is a "four source" theory for Genesis. We find evidence of four different writers.

It would be better to speak of multiple influences rather than "four different writers," since the latter suggests far more knowledge than we have warrant to claim. See, for example:

The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible​