Christian answering questions.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

As customary, G-C, the holy bullshit in your eyes blinds you to reality.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html

1. The two contradictory creation accounts.
The Book of Genesis begins with two contradictory creation accounts (1:1-2:3 and 2:4-3:24). In the first, God created humans (male and female) after he finished making all of the other animals. In the second, God made one man (“Adam”) and then created all of the animals in order to find a helpmeet for Adam. God brought all of the animals to Adam, but none of them appealed to him. So God made a woman from one of Adam’s ribs to serve his helpmeet.
Here are two of the more obvious contradictions between the two creation accounts.

You're overlooking another factor: when the story starts over, in Genesis 2, the story refers to God by another name. It's pretty clear that this is a cut-and-paste job by a group trying to "align" multiple traditions. It's one of the things that triggered investigation into the Documentary Hypothesis in the first place.

[robvalue]

It talks about "Us" as well, clearly a throwback to polytheism which it ripped off. They try and pretend it's Jesus or some shit of course.

[Drich]

As customary, G-C, the holy bullshit in your eyes blinds you to reality.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html

You're overlooking another factor: when the story starts over, in Genesis 2, the story refers to God by another name. It's pretty clear that this is a cut-and-paste job by a group trying to "align" multiple traditions. It's one of the things that triggered investigation into the Documentary Hypothesis in the first place.

ah... No.

Genesis 1 actually ends on the seventh day in Genesis 2:3 Genesis 2 actually starts out in verse 4:

4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. 5 This was before there were plants on the earth. Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants.

So a learn-ed man would ask what day did God make earth and sky but no plants, and rather than read some douche's commentary to tell the less learn-ed man what to think the less Learn-ed man would simply go back to Genesis 1 and look for Himself rather than seek out an over convoluded theory that pushes an agenda the more learn-ed man wants to adopt. This is what He would find:

The Second Day—Sky
6 Then God said, “Let there be a space[c] to separate the water into two parts!” 7 So God made the space and separated the water. Some of the water was above it, and some of the water was below it. 8 God named that space “sky.” There was evening, and then there was morning. This was the second day.
The Third Day—Dry Land and Plants
9 Then God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered together so that the dry land will appear.” And it happened. 10 God named the dry land “earth,” and he named the water that was gathered together “seas.” And God saw that this was good.11 Then God said, “Let the earth grow grass, plants that make grain, and fruit trees. The fruit trees will make fruit with seeds in it. And each plant will make its own kind of seed. Let these plants grow on the earth.” And it happened.

Ok, so after the Second Day, but before verse 11 where Plants grew, is when the WHOLE of GENESIS 2 verse 4 and forward describes.

So here is an example of what Paul said "God will use simple to confound and make fools of the wise and supposedly learn-ed."


Genesis 2 is not a retelling, of G1. Genesis 2 is a garden specific account. Meaning man made in the image of God happened in the garden on Day 3 and everything else Genesis 1 talks about is in a correct order but happened outside the garden, on the day Genesis 1 records.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

You're overlooking another factor: when the story starts over, in Genesis 2, the story refers to God by another name. It's pretty clear that this is a cut-and-paste job by a group trying to "align" multiple traditions. It's one of the things that triggered investigation into the Documentary Hypothesis in the first place.

ah... No.

Genesis 1 actually ends on the seventh day in Genesis 2:3 Genesis 2 actually starts out in verse 4:

4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. 5 This was before there were plants on the earth. Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants.

So a learn-ed man would ask what day did God make earth and sky but no plants, and rather than read some douche's commentary to tell the less learn-ed man what to think the less Learn-ed man would simply go back to Genesis 1 and look for Himself rather than seek out an over convoluded theory that pushes an agenda the more learn-ed man wants to adopt. This is what He would find:

The Second Day—Sky
6 Then God said, “Let there be a space[c] to separate the water into two parts!” 7 So God made the space and separated the water. Some of the water was above it, and some of the water was below it. 8 God named that space “sky.” There was evening, and then there was morning. This was the second day.
The Third Day—Dry Land and Plants
9 Then God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered together so that the dry land will appear.” And it happened. 10 God named the dry land “earth,” and he named the water that was gathered together “seas.” And God saw that this was good.11 Then God said, “Let the earth grow grass, plants that make grain, and fruit trees. The fruit trees will make fruit with seeds in it. And each plant will make its own kind of seed. Let these plants grow on the earth.” And it happened.

Ok, so after the Second Day, but before verse 11 where Plants grew, is when the WHOLE of GENESIS 2 verse 4 and forward describes.

So here is an example of what Paul said "God will use simple to confound and make fools of the wise and supposedly learn-ed."


Genesis 2 is not a retelling, of G1. Genesis 2 is a garden specific account. Meaning man made in the image of God happened in the garden on Day 3 and everything else Genesis 1 talks about is in a correct order but happened outside the garden, on the day Genesis 1 records.

Um, that's why I said, "starts over in Genesis 2". (At verse 4, as you pointed out.) It's the transition between the Priestly account in the first part and the Yahwist account in the second part.

It's pretty clear, both from writing style and the fact that the name they use for God is uniformly different in the two passages, that two different sources were conglomerated into the single version we have today. As for a "garden-specific account", it may well be that the second (Yahwist) author preferred to write down the mythology in a garden-centric POV, but that doesn't make it one story with the first. If it was all one story, there would be no reason to say,  

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.

They took a story from the Preistly account, referring to God as "Elohim", and told the story of the creation of everything, including plants (on day 3, before the sun was made, oddly enough), and including man... then the second story begins with the above, and gets to retelling the bits about creation from a man-centric POV, using the term "Yahweh" instead of "Elohim", and includes the following:

Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Every major element in story one is told a second time, in the Yahwist account found after Genesis 2:4. It's two stories, combined into a single narrative. As I said, it seems likely that they're from two different traditions, or that the former is from the formal account told by the priests, while the latter is the more common form of the story. Either way, it takes a serious degree of willful blindness not to see that, regardless of whether you think Moses wrote all of it (heh) or it was cobbled together from older traditions/scrolls, it's two different tales.

And shove that "learn-ed man" anti-intellectualism into your rectum and hold it there, please.

[Godscreated]

I really don't' have the crayons to answer your question any simpler.

If God died then the universe doesn't need him to exist.  Consequently God is irrelevant.

 A man died, he was also God but without His powers. Christ laid down his powers in heaven to become a man capable of sin. If Christ had come with his powers He would not have been able to sin, this is very important to understand, if you don't you'll never be able to understand why He was the perfect man (sinless) who sacrificed his life for mankind. See what happens when you refuse to study the scriptures and find out what they actually say, you make your own version of the story, a version that's little more than a lie.

GC

[TheRocketSurgeon]

If God died then the universe doesn't need him to exist.  Consequently God is irrelevant.

 A man died, he was also God but without His powers. Christ laid down his powers in heaven to become a man capable of sin. If Christ had come with his powers He would not have been able to sin, this is very important to understand, if you don't you'll never be able to understand why He was the perfect man (sinless) who sacrificed his life for mankind. See what happens when you refuse to study the scriptures and find out what they actually say, you make your own version of the story, a version that's little more than a lie.

GC

Oh we understand what the story claims, bub. We just think it's hilarious that you can't see the marks of a man turned into a myth, then into a god.

God became a man, to show us the way by being a sinless human. He became such a man that he begged himself not to force himself to let himself be murdered so a plan made by himself (to allow humans to be forgiven--by him--of sins, which he made up himself) could go forth. He then asked why he had forsaken himself, as he was being murdered.

Yeah. Sounds like a god. Nope! Sounds like a regular old apocalyptic preacher killed by the Romans to keep the peace, and turned into a legend by his followers. You just can't see that because you're still in the cult.

[SteelCurtain]

An adult talking earnestly about "powers..." It never ceases to amaze me.

[Drich]

ah... No.

Genesis 1 actually ends on the seventh day in Genesis 2:3 Genesis 2 actually starts out in verse 4:

4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. 5 This was before there were plants on the earth. Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants.

So a learn-ed man would ask what day did God make earth and sky but no plants, and rather than read some douche's commentary to tell the less learn-ed man what to think the less Learn-ed man would simply go back to Genesis 1 and look for Himself rather than seek out an over convoluded theory that pushes an agenda the more learn-ed man wants to adopt. This is what He would find:

The Second Day—Sky
6 Then God said, “Let there be a space[c] to separate the water into two parts!” 7 So God made the space and separated the water. Some of the water was above it, and some of the water was below it. 8 God named that space “sky.” There was evening, and then there was morning. This was the second day.
The Third Day—Dry Land and Plants
9 Then God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered together so that the dry land will appear.” And it happened. 10 God named the dry land “earth,” and he named the water that was gathered together “seas.” And God saw that this was good.11 Then God said, “Let the earth grow grass, plants that make grain, and fruit trees. The fruit trees will make fruit with seeds in it. And each plant will make its own kind of seed. Let these plants grow on the earth.” And it happened.

Ok, so after the Second Day, but before verse 11 where Plants grew, is when the WHOLE of GENESIS 2 verse 4 and forward describes.

So here is an example of what Paul said "God will use simple to confound and make fools of the wise and supposedly learn-ed."


Genesis 2 is not a retelling, of G1. Genesis 2 is a garden specific account. Meaning man made in the image of God happened in the garden on Day 3 and everything else Genesis 1 talks about is in a correct order but happened outside the garden, on the day Genesis 1 records.

Um, that's why I said, "starts over in Genesis 2". (At verse 4, as you pointed out.) It's the transition between the Priestly account in the first part and the Yahwist account in the second part.

It's pretty clear, both from writing style and the fact that the name they use for God is uniformly different in the two passages, that two different sources were conglomerated into the single version we have today. As for a "garden-specific account", it may well be that the second (Yahwist) author preferred to write down the mythology in a garden-centric POV, but that doesn't make it one story with the first. If it was all one story, there would be no reason to say,  

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.

They took a story from the Preistly account, referring to God as "Elohim", and told the story of the creation of everything, including plants (on day 3, before the sun was made, oddly enough), and including man... then the second story begins with the above, and gets to retelling the bits about creation from a man-centric POV, using the term "Yahweh" instead of "Elohim", and includes the following:

Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Every major element in story one is told a second time, in the Yahwist account found after Genesis 2:4. It's two stories, combined into a single narrative. As I said, it seems likely that they're from two different traditions, or that the former is from the formal account told by the priests, while the latter is the more common form of the story. Either way, it takes a serious degree of willful blindness not to see that, regardless of whether you think Moses wrote all of it (heh) or it was cobbled together from older traditions/scrolls, it's two different tales.

And shove that "learn-ed man" anti-intellectualism into your rectum and hold it there, please.

Again no. the story did not start over. The creation account starts Genesis 1:1 and ends Genesis 2:3 The GARDEN Account (all of which happens day 3) starts Genesis 2:4 to the end of the chapter. Genesis was a Detailed account of what happened day three only between YHWH and the Garden/Man made in the image of God.

[Godscreated]

 A man died, he was also God but without His powers. Christ laid down his powers in heaven to become a man capable of sin. If Christ had come with his powers He would not have been able to sin, this is very important to understand, if you don't you'll never be able to understand why He was the perfect man (sinless) who sacrificed his life for mankind. See what happens when you refuse to study the scriptures and find out what they actually say, you make your own version of the story, a version that's little more than a lie.

GC

Oh we understand what the story claims, bub. We just think it's hilarious that you can't see the marks of a man turned into a myth, then into a god.

God became a man, to show us the way by being a sinless human. He became such a man that he begged himself not to force himself to let himself be murdered so a plan made by himself (to allow humans to be forgiven--by him--of sins, which he made up himself) could go forth. He then asked why he had forsaken himself, as he was being murdered.

Yeah. Sounds like a god. Nope! Sounds like a regular old apocalyptic preacher killed by the Romans to keep the peace, and turned into a legend by his followers. You just can't see that because you're still in the cult.

 I would think you would be more concerned as to why God has blind you to the reality of Christ.

GC

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Again no. the story did not start over. The creation account starts Genesis 1:1 and ends Genesis 2:3 The GARDEN Account (all of which happens day 3) starts Genesis 2:4 to the end of the chapter. Genesis was a Detailed account of what happened day three only between YHWH and the Garden/Man made in the image of God.

Yes, it's likely that one tradition told the story of the interaction of god-and-man in the garden, while the other story tried to tell of cosmological origins. They're two stories. They were just combined into one.

You can assert your claims here all day, and it still is two stories. Whether they were written at the same time and by the same persons (as you claim) can be debated, but it's still two stories by any measure... one is a general, sweeping view of the earth's creation and our origin/place in it, and the other is your "Detailed" account.

Now how can we tell which of the assertions is more likely to be true? One author or two and a redactor?

Well, we look at things like writing style (there are two different styles, here), what words are used to describe the same thing (one uses Yahweh, while the other uses Elohim), and whether they both cover the same details that could have been omitted if it was a single tale (because it was covered a few lines before), and so on.

Now, you can try to assert the claims of some fundamentalist "scholars" (I use the term loosely), who will try to argue that the Documentary Hypothesis is bunk, but most serious scholars will acknowledge that it's a cut-paste job; they simply quibble over who, why, when, and how much.

Again, your cult's conditioning blinds you to the ability to see what is well-recognized by everyone else. (The hallmark of a cultist!)