Why believe the bible?

[Minimalist]

Just politics...as usual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis

As for why the book was created, a theory which has gained considerable interest, although still controversial is "Persian imperial authorisation". This proposes that the Persians of the Achaemenid Empire, after their conquest of Babylon in 539 BC, agreed to grant Jerusalem a large measure of local autonomy within the empire, but required the local authorities to produce a single law code accepted by the entire community. The two powerful groups making up the community—the priestly families who controlled the Temple and who traced their origin to Moses and the wilderness wanderings, and the major landowning families who made up the "elders" and who traced their own origins to Abraham, who had "given" them the land—were in conflict over many issues, and each had its own "history of origins", but the Persian promise of greatly increased local autonomy for all provided a powerful incentive to cooperate in producing a single text.[

Poor dripshit.  Suckered in by an ancient famly feud!

[Drich]

Again....

First account is what happens outside the garden... meaning chapter one is the order things took place outside the garden. meaning the animals were created first.

now chapter 2 states between day 3 and 4 The garden and everything in it was created meaning Adam was created then the animals. 

Note outside the garden man mentioned in chapter 1 was not Adam. again adam was created between day 3 and 4 inside the garden and given a soul. nothing like that happened for the man outside the garden.

Except that your explanation doesn't wash because the Hebrew in Genesis 1 explicitly says that God made "a-dam" in "Our image," thus ruling out the possibility that the man created in Genesis 1 was not possessed of a soul like unto the nature of God.  If this is another of your "monkey man" theories, then it simply doesn't square with the text.  The context as well as the Hebrew itself makes clear that both Genesis 1 and 2 are speaking of the same event.  In addition, Genesis 2 states that, "19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name."  Note that he is explicitly referring to "every" beast of the field and "every" bird of the sky (heavens), not just those in Eden.  (Some bibles translate Genesis 2:19 with "had formed" instead of "formed," but this is nothing more than an illicit attempt to harmonize the two accounts, and is not supported by the Hebrew text [see Translating Genesis 2:19].)

or:
24 Then God said, “Let the earth produce many kinds of living things. Let there be many different kinds of animals. Let there be large animals and small crawling animals of every kind. And let all these animals produce more animals.” And all these things happened.
25 So God made every kind of animal. He made the wild animals, the tame animals, and all the small crawling things. And God saw that this was good.
26 Then God said, “Now let’s make humans[f] who will be like us.[g] They will rule over all the fish in the sea and the birds in the air. They will rule over all the large animals and all the little things that crawl on the earth.”
27 So God created humans in his own image. He created them to be like himself.[h] He created them male and female. 28 God blessed them and said to them, “Have many children. Fill the earth and take control of it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the air. Rule over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
29 God said, “I am giving you all the grain bearing plants and all the fruit trees. These trees make fruit with seeds in it. This grain and fruit will be your food. 30 And I am giving all the green plants to the animals. These green plants will be their food. Every animal on earth, every bird in the air, and all the little things that crawl on the earth will eat that food.” And all these things happened.

As I'm sure your well aware of but dishonestly hiding the fact that the hebrew word Adam also refers to Human kind. as my passage describes as all passages describe in the english when refering to gen1 NIV, NKJV KJV ETR ASV NASV all refer gen1 adam to humanity or man kind.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H120&t=KJV

just like in the passage I left to you above. Adam was not uses as a name till after God man the man and placed him in the garden That Adam technically was the first man and the man created with a soul. The man outside simply resembled God/was genetically compatible with the man inside the garden and his people.

[Angrboda]

just like in the passage I left to you above. Adam was not uses as a name till after God man the man and placed him in the garden That Adam technically was the first man and the man created with a soul. The man outside simply resembled God/was genetically compatible with the man inside the garden and his people.

Well, you're ignoring that Genesis 1 explicitly states that "adam" created at that time was created in God's image. But I'm curious to know upon what basis do you rest this theory about the one referring to mankind in Genesis 1, and that it was a proper name in the second? Are you trying to suggest that God has the form of an ape man? That would be contrary to all Jewish theology up to the present day. Does God have DNA?

As I'm sure your well aware of but dishonestly hiding the fact that the hebrew word Adam also refers to Human kind. as my passage describes as all passages describe in the english when refering to gen1 NIV, NKJV KJV ETR ASV NASV all refer gen1 adam to humanity or man kind.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H120&t=KJV

Your citation of Strong's doesn't support the distinction you are making. What does? (According to the interlinear bible I consulted, Genesis 2 refers to "the man" (ha'adam). Is that a proper name?)

According to most 'traditional' interpretations of ha'adam, the term is usually translated into human in the Priestly creation. However, in the Yahwist one ha'dam [sic] is translated either into human, Adam, or man, depending on the context.

Ha’adam : Adam, man or human - The Importance of Interpretation in Biblical Translation

[Drich]

just like in the passage I left to you above. Adam was not uses as a name till after God man the man and placed him in the garden That Adam technically was the first man and the man created with a soul. The man outside simply resembled God/was genetically compatible with the man inside the garden and his people.

Well, you're ignoring that Genesis 1 explicitly states that "adam" created at that time was created in God's image.  But I'm curious to know upon what you basis do you rest this theory about the one referring to mankind in Genesis 1, and that it was a proper name in the second?  Are you trying to suggest that God has the form of an ape man?  That would be contrary to all Jewish theology up to the present day.

what a dishonest person you are. I cut and pasted a copy of an actual translation where the word humanity was used instead of the word or nae Adam and then gave a comprehensive list of a dozen other well known and well received bibles who all translate the hebrew word "adam" in Genesis 1 as mankind humanity ect.. 

Are you so foolish as to not understand the hebrew word Adam is not limited to a name?

or is this where you believe you own hype that "i truly don't know what I know?" and all you got to do is post a pic of a page from a lexicon?

Have you forgotten I brought that particular piece of source material to this website under much mocking and hate as you people did not even know what one was?!?! Now you pretend that I cant use one or don't have access to one?

Maybe it is you who doesn't know what she thinks she knows...

[Angrboda]

Well, you're ignoring that Genesis 1 explicitly states that "adam" created at that time was created in God's image.  But I'm curious to know upon what you basis do you rest this theory about the one referring to mankind in Genesis 1, and that it was a proper name in the second?  Are you trying to suggest that God has the form of an ape man?  That would be contrary to all Jewish theology up to the present day.

what a dishonest person you are. I cut and pasted a copy of an actual translation where the word humanity was used instead of the word or nae Adam and then gave a comprehensive list of a dozen other well known and well received bibles who all translate the hebrew word "adam" in Genesis 1 as mankind humanity ect.. 

Are you so foolish as to not understand the hebrew word Adam is not limited to a name?

or is this where you believe you own hype that "i truly don't know what I know?" and all you got to do is post a pic of a page from a lexicon?

Have you forgotten I brought that particular piece of source material to this website under much mocking and hate as you people did not even know what one was?!?! Now you pretend that I cant use one or don't have access to one?

Maybe it is you who doesn't know what she thinks she knows...

That doesn't answer my question. See my previous post for more on the matter that was added after my initial post.

I'm well aware that the Hebrew isn't restricted to solely a name, as that was in the citation from Strong's which you referenced (in addition to already knowing that fact).
You still haven't adequately justified your interpretation that in Genesis 1, adam does not refer to the creation of Adam, whereas Genesis 2 does.
I'm also interested in hearing more about why you think God has the form or genetic material of an ape-man.

[JairCrawford]

Again....

First account is what happens outside the garden... meaning chapter one is the order things took place outside the garden. meaning the animals were created first.

now chapter 2 states between day 3 and 4 The garden and everything in it was created meaning Adam was created then the animals. 

Note outside the garden man mentioned in chapter 1 was not Adam. again adam was created between day 3 and 4 inside the garden and given a soul. nothing like that happened for the man outside the garden.

Except that your explanation doesn't wash because the Hebrew in Genesis 1 explicitly says that God made "a-dam" in "Our image," thus ruling out the possibility that the man created in Genesis 1 was not possessed of a soul like unto the nature of God. If this is another of your "monkey man" theories, then it simply doesn't square with the text. The context as well as the Hebrew itself makes clear that both Genesis 1 and 2 are speaking of the same event. In addition, Genesis 2 states that, "19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name." Note that he is explicitly referring to "every" beast of the field and "every" bird of the sky (heavens), not just those in Eden. (Some bibles translate Genesis 2:19 with "had formed" instead of "formed," but this is nothing more than an illicit attempt to harmonize the two accounts, and is not supported by the Hebrew text [see Translating Genesis 2:19].)

@Drich He does make a significant point here. Please note that this does not mean that I do not believe that the scriptures are divinely inspired, as I do. But I would contend that it makes it extremely difficult, nigh impossible, to interpret it one hundred percent literally. Which is ok, because, as I use to debate with fundamental innerantists, the verse in the NT states that "All scripture is God breathed, and is useful for teaching..." It does NOT, however say, '...God breathed and literally dictated and you DARE not question lest ye burn'. In fact no such verse exists, so fundamentalists decided to try to take one of the verses in Revelation out of context and twist its meaning to this instead. But I digress.

It is an interesting theory, but the word adam is used in both.

Another interesting thing to note is that the word adam can be understood as mankind, or human. Because the word iysh is used for man/male/husband in the vast majority of the Hebrew text. So you could argue that genders were not distinguished until Hawah (Eve) was made from the rib of Adam (Human).

[robvalue]

The thing is, "divinely inspired" or not, it's either perfect or it isn't. And if it isn't, every bit of it needs to pass scrutiny on its own merits.

Clearly it isn't perfect, far from it. Trying to argue that it is requires ignoring not only the internal problems but reality itself.

[Silver]

We seriously need to replace "divinely" for "delusionally", or at the very least "imaginatively", in the context of biblical inspiration.

[JairCrawford]

The thing is, "divinely inspired" or not, it's either perfect or it isn't. And if it isn't, every bit of it needs to pass scrutiny on its own merits.

Clearly it isn't perfect, far from it. Trying to argue that it is requires ignoring not only the internal problems but reality itself.

In a broad sense, I can agree. In fact, I can't recall any verse within the Bible that asserts that the Bible is literally perfect. So we can deduce that a doctrine that insists such a thing is indeed a man made doctrine, and not a God doctrine.

This does not, however, lead me to the conclusion that God doesn't use the Bible to speak to me.

[Minimalist]

First you have to conjure up a god though, don't you?