Skeptics view of Genesis

[Captain Colostomy]

Hey Drich,

I could challenge you on every single point. Perhaps sum all your views up in a word document? As this forum is not the best place to answer 148 questions.

Considering thats only one book of the bible lol.

---

Drich,

Can I also ask not to give your 'View' or 'Opinion' and only use Scripture to confirm or deny my points. Giving your opinion is not Scriptural If I am to believe the bible is true in some form I need the bible to back itself up. Any external views and opinions in essence show that the bible cannot be true otherwise there would be no need for re-interpretation.

Not to dissuade you, but you can speed up the tit for tat with him by just saying 'nuh-uh'.

[themonkeyman]

Captain Colostomy your wisdom and understanding are as great as that of Abraham :-)

lol only joking that would be a down right lie - Abraham was a dick.

[ITChick]

'Giants'

IMO no fairy tale would be complete without including giants in some form.

And then Christians wonder why we are sceptical.

[Tonus]

They 'seem incompatible' because you are not allowing for traditional Hebrew writing/accounting style. We in modern times in the west document everything chronologically. In ancient Hebrew culture the way one accounted an event was to first give an overview highlighting all of the major points and then come back and fill in the details.

-or- is it your belief that the guy who wrote genesis 1 forgot what he wrote in genesis 1 when he started on genesis 2?

It seems more likely that it was two different stories written by two different people about two very different gods. Genesis 1 features a less anthropomorphic and much more mystical god, who creates by simply voicing his desires. He creates man and woman together, then tells them "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."

Genesis 2's creation account seems edited somewhat, perhaps to remove the parts that are an obvious contradiction to the first account. But the god of Genesis 2 is much more human in his actions and there are distinct geographical details that border on pedantry. In any case, this god creates man first, and woman only when he feels that man needs a companion. Thus, it is only to man that god says "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."

The god of Genesis 1 creates Earth as some kind of grand work of art, and man is his greatest creation, made in his own image. He creates man and woman, and offers them Earth as a gift, theirs to fill with offspring and enjoy as their home, where they eat from its fruit and rule over its creatures.

The god of Genesis 2 creates a garden for mankind, and places the first human in it, and immediately gives him a restrictive rule. Later he creates a woman and gives her to the man. Genesis 2 ends with the strange comment that the two were naked and unashamed by this, which makes you wonder what cultural norms existed at the time that it was written, or if we are dealing with a fairly poor writer who thought it necessary to explain why people wear clothes.

Then he starts on the text we find in Genesis 3, where you get the impression that he took an extra hit from his crack pipe before he began to write.

[Drich]

Hey Drich,

I could challenge you on every single point. Perhaps sum all your views up in a word document? As this forum is not the best place to answer 148 questions.

Considering thats only one book of the bible lol.

I've answer far more than just 148 questions in this and other forums. Besides you do not know who else you or your questions represent. Your questions and follow up could help someone become or stay away from atheism.

---

Drich,

Can I also ask not to give your 'View' or 'Opinion' and only use Scripture to confirm or deny my points. Giving your opinion is not Scriptural If I am to believe the bible is true in some form I need the bible to back itself up. Any external views and opinions in essence show that the bible cannot be true otherwise there would be no need for re-interpretation.

No need to throw the baby out with the bath water all personal views are identified as such. You also need to consider not all of your questions are biblically (content) related. For example the supposed contradictions you pointed out in Gen 1&2 are based on a general ignorance of Hebrew writing. (Not calling you names, just identifying a problem.) as such one can not turn to scripture to discern your own personal misunderstanding.

---

They 'seem incompatible' because you are not allowing for traditional Hebrew writing/accounting style. We in modern times in the west document everything chronologically. In ancient Hebrew culture the way one accounted an event was to first give an overview highlighting all of the major points and then come back and fill in the details.

-or- is it your belief that the guy who wrote genesis 1 forgot what he wrote in genesis 1 when he started on genesis 2?

It seems more likely that it was two different stories written by two different people about two very different gods. Genesis 1 features a less anthropomorphic and much more mystical god, who creates by simply voicing his desires. He creates man and woman together, then tells them "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."

Genesis 2's creation account seems edited somewhat, perhaps to remove the parts that are an obvious contradiction to the first account. But the god of Genesis 2 is much more human in his actions and there are distinct geographical details that border on pedantry. In any case, this god creates man first, and woman only when he feels that man needs a companion. Thus, it is only to man that god says "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."

The god of Genesis 1 creates Earth as some kind of grand work of art, and man is his greatest creation, made in his own image. He creates man and woman, and offers them Earth as a gift, theirs to fill with offspring and enjoy as their home, where they eat from its fruit and rule over its creatures.

The god of Genesis 2 creates a garden for mankind, and places the first human in it, and immediately gives him a restrictive rule. Later he creates a woman and gives her to the man. Genesis 2 ends with the strange comment that the two were naked and unashamed by this, which makes you wonder what cultural norms existed at the time that it was written, or if we are dealing with a fairly poor writer who thought it necessary to explain why people wear clothes.

Then he starts on the text we find in Genesis 3, where you get the impression that he took an extra hit from his crack pipe before he began to write.

-or-
It was as I described:
http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/Genesis_texts.html

---

'Giants'

IMO no fairy tale would be complete without including giants in some form.

And then Christians wonder why we are sceptical.

Gaints walk among us today, why is it so hard to believe there were a proper race of them?

https://www.google.com/search?q=tallest+...83&bih=576

https://www.google.com/search?q=tallest+...83&bih=576

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Gaints walk among us today, why is it so hard to believe there were a proper race of them?

https://www.google.com/search?q=tallest+...83&bih=576

https://www.google.com/search?q=tallest+...83&bih=576

They're humans.

Do you know the biological definition of a species?

[Drich]

Gaints walk among us today, why is it so hard to believe there were a proper race of them?

https://www.google.com/search?q=tallest+...83&bih=576

https://www.google.com/search?q=tallest+...83&bih=576

They're humans.

Do you know the biological definition of a species?

Do you always move the goal posts when your arguments fall short?

I said a proper race of them, Race as in:Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.
not Species. You introduced that term as a way to narrow the field.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

@Drich, how tall would someone need to be to qualify as a giant? See? It's a gradation. Which makes your whole "race" point moot.

Most of the very tall people have an imbalance of their growth hormones, they do not need to come from tall parents. That's not a "race". But I guess anything goes when it comes to proving the bible right.

[Minimalist]

Actually, Drippy....

Parallel Verses
New International Version
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

New Living Translation
In those days, and for some time after, giant Nephilites lived on the earth, for whenever the sons of God had intercourse with women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes and famous warriors of ancient times.

English Standard Version
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

New American Standard Bible
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

King James Bible
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
The Nephilim were on the earth both in those days and afterward, when the sons of God came to the daughters of mankind, who bore children to them. They were the powerful men of old, the famous men.

International Standard Version
The Nephilim were on the earth at that time (and also immediately afterward), when those divine beings were having sexual relations with those human women, who gave birth to children for them. These children became the heroes and legendary figures of ancient times.

most bible horseshit makes no attempt to translate the word "nephilim" except the most useless translation of all, the KJV. Once again, we see where you are most solidly locked in.

The rest have no idea what nephilim means and are honest enough not to try to render it into English.

[Tonus]

-or-
It was as I described:
http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/Genesis_texts.html

Are you saying that you agree with the explanation from that site?