Creation/evolution3

[robvalue]

I've made a topic before about the creation account. The only witness that we know of which saw God create everything was God. So we just have god's word. And he lies by his own admission, in his own book. And I think a God would be capable of lying anyhow.

[dyresand]

I've made a topic before about the creation account. The only witness that we know of which saw God create everything was God. So we just have god's word. And he lies by his own admission, in his own book. And I think a God would be capable of lying anyhow.

I am going to say it again no one knows if god created everything because there was no people around then to write it down. And the only people that were writing things about god were in the ass end of the desert writing stuff down that would have such a profound affect on humanity and would cause some pretty inhumane into the future.

[downbeatplumb]

I've made a topic before about the creation account. The only witness that we know of which saw God create everything was God. So we just have god's word. And he lies by his own admission, in his own book. And I think a God would be capable of lying anyhow.

I am going to say it again no one knows if god created everything because there was no people around then to write it down. And the only people that were writing things about god were in the ass end of the desert writing stuff down that would have such a profound affect on humanity and would cause some pretty inhumane into the future.

Well if it happened when the young earth creationists think it did then there was a flourishing literate civilisation around at the time. The Sumerians and Egyptions I believe.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's not always the case, but I have been known to pull a few whoppers out of my ass from time to time.

Fixed for accuracy.

[Davka]

Both writers make use of that device. In the first creation account, god says "let us make man in our image." There is no similar use in the second creation account, but in the story of the fall (which is written in the style of the writer of the second creation account) god laments that "man has become like one of us." No reference is made to any other specific being, and so it could refer to a pantheon of gods, but could also refer to spirit beings such as angels. The creation accounts do not mention angels, but at the end of chapter three we are told that god places a cherubim at the entrance of the path to the tree of life. That is the first specific reference to any other spiritual being in the Bible, since the serpent is not identified as anything but a serpent.

The whole question of using plural v. singular is probably just a translation misunderstanding. Hebrew is weird when it comes to plural forms - sometimes the plural is the only form of a word. For example, the word for "water" is ma-yeem, which is a plural form (the "eem" or "im" ending is like "s" in English). In Hebrew, the plural form doesn't always indicate plural in the English sense.

Elohim is a plural noun. The singular form, El, is used in the Bible with a descriptive term, such as El Olam, "eternal god," or El Rofeh, "God-who-heals." Elohim is used as the generic "god," and can refer to YHVH or to the god or gods of other religions.

[Roxy904]

If I read a book that makes highly dubious claims with no evidence whatsoever for the events occurring with in it, I am going to assume that that book is fiction, inaccurate, idiotic, or all three.
If the author claims that God told them to transcribe His holy message, I am going to assume that they are schizophrenic, lying, idiotic, or all three.

[goodwithoutgod]

[Nope]

Drich, it sounds as if you would like to accept some parts of evolution while still believing that Genesis is literally true. You can still be a Christian and view the story as a metaphor. Would it really hurt your faith to believe that there was never an Eden?

[Esquilax]

Drich, it sounds as if you would like to accept some parts of evolution while still believing that Genesis is literally true. You can still be a Christian and view the story as a metaphor. Would it really hurt your faith to believe that there was never an Eden?

It would, but mostly because that would require Drich to admit that he was wrong, rather than any theological concerns. We can't get Drich to own up to a spelling error, much less a theological one; like the worst of christian apologists, he simply must be right, at all times, even on low stakes things, like how "artical" is not the correct spelling of a word.

[Drich]

Why would I need to admit that the Genesis account is allegorical if it's plausible and works along side the evolutionary account?

God seems to love using the painfully obvious and foolishly simple to show up the learned and the wise of this world.

How much more obvious and simple can it get that because their is no timeline between the end of a literal 7 day creation and the fall of man, that the whole scientific account could have taken place?