Evolution/creation video

[Drich]

Again Gen 1 shows man outside of the Garden and he was not said to be made of dust. He is said to be made in the image of God... From that it is possible he evolved.

Chapter 2 was a garden only narrative and a specific person Adam was created from mud and fast tracked into a fully developed homosapien. As such his given a soul.

And who is to say which creation story we're to give credence to? In the time that Genesis was written, it's said there was no need for consistency in story-telling; that the narrative was more than just a linear recounting of events. But does that hold up today? I'd say not. If we're to take the creation story as literal, then which one was it?

the video answers this question very directly in that two different things are being described here. 1 the seven day creation by God the Father. which is the whole of chapter one and the first 3 verses of chapter 2.

Verse 4 forward of chapter 2 is a garden narrative which begins on day 3. Jesus was the creator of chapter 2 which had a different order.

Was it Chapter One or Chapter Two that defined the true creation?

Again chapter 1 gives you the full seven days of the world.
Chapter 2 verse 4 forward is garden narrative only starting on day 3

Or are we not to take the creation story as literal?

what I describe allows for a literal acceptance of both or do you still not see it?

And in that case, why pay it any attention at all, as scientific thinkers? Surely, if you're interested in understanding that period of time, the stories in Genesis can provide something for you. But if you're looking for an account of things that actually happened, is Genesis helpful at all?

That's the real question at the bottom of all of this.

again asked and answered in the video watch it again this time in full with the intent on learning something. Nothing I wrote here wasn't addressed directly in the video

---

[quote='Drich' pid='1946719' dateline='1576091846']
asked and answered in the video

I explain how scripturally the sun came first 

scripturally and contextually how light without a direct reference of a sun came about and a 12 other popular contradictions.

I'm sure that's quite the song and dance.  All to avoid how Genesis is explicit in stating that Earth and water existed before light, or night and day.  Moving further down the text, it becomes clear that Earth existed before the sun.  Furthermore, the moon is referenced as a lesser light.  It produces no light.  There's no re-interpretation for getting around that basic conflict between cosmology and Genesis.  Also, you didn't answer my question.  Why the need to resolve matters of faith with science?

No, day two explicitly states why the sun was not observable on day one and chapter two states why the sun was not visible till day 4. in plain english. None of you guys bother to actually read the bible with honest eyes. you only read to support your slant.