Genesis interpretations - how many are there?

[Amarok]

if you can't prove there are contradictions then you haven't a leg to stand on and thus there is no contradictions

Your denial does not help you 

That's a joke and you know it. I know some Christians know little about the Bible but all Christians realize the truth of scripture. I studied with many different Christians that could run circles around any atheist, I've seen it.

No that's a joke 

No they were not , you are now trying to lie to give other atheist the wrong idea, but that's okay they as you will learn the truth one day. There is nothing wrong with the Bible it is the perfect spiritual book for those who want to live with God forever.

Only if you have never read or studied it without the bible glasses

[The Valkyrie]

And again we get nothing real that ends with the "one day you'll learn" threat.

The same lame threat that Muslims do with Christians and others.

It's sad, really, the programming that allows a mind to believe that the same empty words repeated over and over again will somehow scare others into believing the same nonsense that you believe in.

And the lies aren't coming from my direction. They're coming from the direction where they're backed up by a book of contradictory myths. A book that's full of stories that have been disproved.

[Fake Messiah]

There is nothing wrong with the Bible it is the perfect spiritual book for those who want to live with God forever.

GC

Except even according to Bible you won't live forever with god when you die because Heaven will perish Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

wah wah

[possibletarian]

Sometimes a contradiction is simply a contradiction, this is the problem when you claim inerrancy with one sentence, then the need for human interpretation with tortured and excruciating explanations the next.

[Drich]

That said the bible never claims to have had a magic made create anything. that is a weak minded/unexamined view of a process you dont want to understand. if you don't understand it it can be swept away without thought or arguement.

And you understand the process of turning dust into human being?! Then "enlighten" me: how do you call a process in which someone takes dust from the ground and turns it into human being?

I understand the process of taking a human being and turning him into dust..

after all any process construction i give you will say that is not real dust.. But, If i can take a human carcas and decompile it to it's base elements "dust" will be what remains.. real can't deny it dust.

---

Or, in the alternative story, takes a rib out of someone?

what you don't think it is possible to take dna out of a rib?

[Crossless2.0]

In a mere four sentences, you managed to go from perception and limited understanding to lies.  Careful, GC, your slip is showing.

Seems you're full of words with no proof.

GC

As usual, you miss the point.

[Drich]

Well Mr. Drich, you have 2 plainly worded scriptures in consecutive Genesis chapters that both cannot be true.

There's also that little matter at the Last Supper where Jesus did wine then bread in one inerrant gospel and bread then wine in another supposedly inerrant gospel.  

And Lord knows you don't like how I see the matter of whether or not Simon of Cyrene  carried Jesus cross.  And at least my take leaves both accounts as true in that regard.

You haven't even read the start of genesis two have you? from verse 4 to 6 makes BOTH genesis 1 and genesis 2 jive.

4 This is the [a]history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

Do you see?

"This" meaning everything in Genesis 2 is the [a]history of the heavens and the earth.. Meaning everything in chapter two happened on this singular day.. what day? continue reading: "when they were created happens on the day the earth made the heavens and earth, but before the day he made plants or herbs because there was no rain yet." so day two day three because God had made the heavens and earth/separated water from land but before plants, everything he is describing next in chapter two happened in that time frame. created land but before the rain and plants.. so what happened in that time frame? everything in chapter two, meaning the garden, Adam and everything in the garden eve and everything else upto the fall.. while that was going on day two and three roll by outside the garden.

Do you understand?

Chapter one is an over view

Chapter two is garden creation specific.
"On the day between creation of dry land but before the plants and rain God created all of what happened in chapter 2."

Everything else God created in Chapter 1 is in order that it happened outside the garden.

That means Adam/man with soul was created 1st and put the work in the garden, then God created day 6 man and he dewelled outside the garden.

This also means with this slight adjustment on the traditional reading, that all of the other creation paradoxes go away as well. as in who did Adam's children marry, where did the city of nod come from the cain ran off to after killing his brother. All those other people were descendants from day 6 man.

---

There's also that little matter at the Last Supper where Jesus did wine then bread in one inerrant gospel and bread then wine in another supposedly inerrant gospel.  

  Is it not true if you do bread and wine, you also do wine and bread? Honestly what in your mind thinks the fate of all christianity hinges on the order of wine and bread?

Maybe you are confused about the doctrine of inerrancy, or maybe your confused what inerrancy pertains to scripturally. meaning how the bible itself defines inerrancy. If you do then why hold the bible to this false expectation of perfection, when the bible itself NEVER claims to be perfect as God is perfect. It simply claims to be all that you need to establish and maintain a real relationship with God.

So again it is not the order of the bread or wine but the purpose for the bread and wine that all gospels and even acts reports for the reason that is important.

And Lord knows you don't like how I see the matter of whether or not Simon of Cyrene  carried Jesus cross.

A man named simon carried the cross for a bit. that is true in all 3 instances that he is mentioned. John simply points out Jesus was made to carry it at first. No gospel says simon carried the cross from the get go.

 And at least my take leaves both accounts as true in that regard.

no idea what you are talking about.

[Minimalist]

The fact that xtians have been arguing this among themselves since the beginning speaks volumes.  As comic Lewis Black notes, xtians can't be held responsible for that because it is not their book.  Just one more thing stolen from the jews.

Ironically that's one of the main arguments I use when arguing with the more ultra dogmatic variety within my own faith. Why are we arguing about the literal or allegorical nature of Bereishit 1-3 and making claims to salvation about that? We're not Jewish.

Frankly, Jair, I always get a real charge out of it when xtians try to tell jews how to be jews.  Talk about chutzpah!

[Succubus]

if you can't prove there are contradictions then you haven't a leg to stand on and thus there is no contradictions.

GC

I'm sure this is a waste of keyboard ink but fuckit anyway.

Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

But it is very clear that not one of these sayings relates to Jesus; for he is not even from Judah. How could he be when according to you he was not born of Joseph but of the Holy Spirit? For though in your genealogies you trace Joseph back to Judah, you could not invent even this plausibly. For Matthew and Luke are refuted by the fact that they disagree concerning his genealogy. —Roman Emperor Flavius Claudius Julian, c. 361–363 CE

Good old Julian, they weren't all fucking idiots in those days.

[Pat Mustard]

I studied with many different Christians that could run circles around any atheist, I've seen it.

Name one. I know the kind of christians you "study" with, they couldn't, collectively, rival the intellectual rigour and depth of a dead goldfish.