[Guss]

A minister told me that he learned the following at a theological college:

The "beginning" stories circulated orally for a long time before a few people learned to write. As you might expect, stories develop deviations as they are re-told across a land. As writing came into use, someone thought that it would be a good idea to write down the stories which would hopefully reduce the amount of deviation. Unfortunately, they were unable to determine which of the stories was the absolute truth, so they recorded the two best stories which became Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. In other words - The people that put it into writing probably understood better than we do that it was imperfect. So if they were not able to make the two stories mesh, we shouldn't be expected to.

[greenlion]

Originally Posted by Guss

A minister told me that he learned the following at a theological college:

The "beginning" stories circulated orally for a long time before a few people learned to write. As you might expect, stories develop deviations as they are re-told across a land. As writing came into use, someone thought that it would be a good idea to write down the stories which would hopefully reduce the amount of deviation. Unfortunately, they were unable to determine which of the stories was the absolute truth, so they recorded the two best stories which became Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. In other words - The people that put it into writing probably understood better than we do that it was imperfect. So if they were not able to make the two stories mesh, we shouldn't be expected to.

Given that it was probably recorded in the late Bronze Age, I highly doubt the recorders were using the historical-critical-method, or any scientific arguments to weigh which version was technically "more correct". They just wrote down the two versions of the story that were circulating at the time of the writing, which would have been the ONLY explanation of the history of the world they had access to since the enlightenment period was still a few years away...

I also very much doubt that the writers understood better than we do that the stories were imperfect. Most mythic religion was (and still is in some places) taken as literal truth.

[Peace Warrior]

(Posting here now in order to receive updates and additions.)

[Japle]

Posted by Guss:
The "beginning" stories circulated orally for a long time before a few people learned to write. As you might expect, stories develop deviations as they are re-told across a land. As writing came into use, someone thought that it would be a good idea to write down the stories which would hopefully reduce the amount of deviation. Unfortunately, they were unable to determine which of the stories was the absolute truth, so they recorded the two best stories which became Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. In other words - The people that put it into writing probably understood better than we do that it was imperfect. So if they were not able to make the two stories mesh, we shouldn't be expected to.

Right. As the stories were re-told, they developed deviations.
It’s like the old children’s game “telephone”. Each person changes the story a bit and at the end, it’s changed beyond belief (pun intended).

The reason they weren’t able to determine which version of the story was true was because they were all myth. As you said, “if they were not able to make the two stories mesh, we shouldn't be expected to”.

The Bible was the first major religious document to be written outside the Orient. It was a fumbling first attempt, but it didn’t have any serious competition.
Since most people couldn’t read or write and considered books to be semi magical, the Bible had great appeal.

[Vic Hays]

Originally Posted by Japle

Even if I did, he doesn't seem to be available.
Repeated prophecies of his “return” have been (and will continue to be) wildly optimistic.

Those predictions have been based upon faulty interpretation.
At Jesus first coming, the majority were not looking for Him or outright didn't want Him.

The Wise men asked where the Christ would be born. The scribe knew it would be Bethlehem and yet no one was looking for Him there except the wise men and some shepherds that God knew would appreciate Him.

[Japle]

Vic, I'd like to continue this conversation, but it's outside the subject of the thread.

[BradD]

Originally Posted by Japle

...I've heard those "explanations" and many others over the years.

They are, to put it mildly, not convincing. They require that you read a lot into Genesis that isn't there.
...

Have you went through a detailed study of Genesis? In other words, a study put together by a Bible scholar? I think you'd get a better answer than you'd get from a layperson Sunday School teacher or some random guys (of who knows what background and level of education on the subject) on the internet.

There are lots of commentaries out there. I've been reading and listening to MacArthur a lot lately, and he explains things in a very detail-oriented manner. His "origins" series is at the following link and I'd be shocked if your answers aren't there.

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermon+...-the-Beginning

[muscogee]

Originally Posted by achysklic

All I can say is I am glad I invested in a translation of the bible that actually translated Gen. correctly so there is no doubts and contradictions.

You get what you pay for.

Absolutely. If it agrees with you, then it must be correct. It's the one written by the big hand that came out of the sky.

[muscogee]

Originally Posted by achysklic

Why speak it makes you look foolish, Gen. along with the first 5 books of the bible had only one writer.

He must have been several thousand years old when he died.

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by BradD

Have you went through a detailed study of Genesis? In other words, a study put together by a Bible scholar? I think you'd get a better answer than you'd get from a layperson Sunday School teacher or some random guys (of who knows what background and level of education on the subject) on the internet.

There are lots of commentaries out there. I've been reading and listening to MacArthur a lot lately, and he explains things in a very detail-oriented manner. His "origins" series is at the following link and I'd be shocked if your answers aren't there.

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermon+...-the-Beginning

MacArthur doesn't really address the questions at all. He does the same thing Vic Hays has, insists that you either accept his interpretation of scripture and not ask any questions. He also veers off into the traditional creationist tactic of trying to connect evolutionary theory to Hitler just for good measure.

[Brasso]

The traditional Jewish interpretation is that Genesis is written in parable form. A story, that while true, is meant to give insight rather than a scientific record.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by Norske

Because they were written by a bunch of barely literate goat herders who were trying, for the first time, to write down myths that had passed down to them, generation by generation, verbally, for thousands of years.

And no, they were NOT the revealed words of "God".

The OT is the written -- wildly successful -- historical political propaganda of the Israeli People.

It is the biggest example of the saying that the "The Victors write the Histories".

Or in this case, "The Survivors write the Histories".

Please explain how it is historical propaganda, when it details and documents all the sins/faults of their leaders? If you compare other mesopotamian writings at the time, they never refer to their leadership in any derogatory fashion whatsoever. That would be the historical propoganda.

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

Please explain how it is historical propaganda, when it details and documents all the sins/faults of their leaders? If you compare other mesopotamian writings at the time, they never refer to their leadership in any derogatory fashion whatsoever. That would be the historical propoganda.

Have you read the Epic of Gilgamesh? The whole thing starts out with Gilgamesh abusing the people.

[BradD]

Originally Posted by Animal Mother

MacArthur doesn't really address the questions at all. He does the same thing Vic Hays has, insists that you either accept his interpretation of scripture and not ask any questions. He also veers off into the traditional creationist tactic of trying to connect evolutionary theory to Hitler just for good measure.

You're doing what I've seen you and your unbelieving friends accuse others of doing: you addressed a different issue, one for which you think you have a stronger grip.

The thread is about apparent contradictions. In other words, in one verse, the Bible says x and in some other verse, the Bible says y.

You are focusing on something else entirely: MacArthur's arguments against evolution and billions of years, but that's not the topic of this thread, or at least it wasn't. The Hitler remark was well placed also.

Of course, the motivation is obvious. As a strong atheist evangelist (?--there's gotta be a good word for that. atheigelist atheistgelist?! LOL), you'd hate for Japle to go listen to a few hours of actual explanation and perhaps start wondering if he has run down the wrong snake hole due to poor understanding when he was younger.

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by BradD

You're doing what I've seen you and your unbelieving friends accuse others of doing: you addressed a different issue, one for which you think you have a stronger grip.

The thread is about apparent contradictions. In other words, in one verse, the Bible says x and in some other verse, the Bible says y.

You are focusing on something else entirely: MacArthur's arguments against evolution and billions of years, but that's not the topic of this thread, or at least it wasn't. The Hitler remark was well placed also.

Of course, the motivation is obvious. As a strong atheist evangelist (?--there's gotta be a good word for that. atheigelist atheistgelist?! LOL), you'd hate for Japle to go listen to a few hours of actual explanation and perhaps start wondering if he has run down the wrong snake hole due to poor understanding when he was younger.

I couldn't address MacArthur's response to the apparent contradictions in Genesis, because he doesn't address them. At least in the page you linked, he only spoke about Genesis 1 in detail and focused primarily on the dispute between creationism and science.

I addressed the issues that MacArthur brought up in the link you offered, I couldn't address his take on the discrepancies between Genesis 1 and 2, because he simply ignores them.

I don't care what Japle listens to, though I read the transcripts rather than listening to them, because the evidence is clearly in favor of the scientific position and that's what is important.

[Japle]

Posted by BradD:
As a strong atheist evangelist (?--there's gotta be a good word for that. atheigelist atheistgelist?! LOL), you'd hate for Japle to go listen to a few hours of actual explanation and perhaps start wondering if he has run down the wrong snake hole due to poor understanding when he was younger.

I've listened to many hours of people trying to explain Biblical contradictions. It always comes down to the same old hooey.

"That's not what it really says", followed by a line of BS based on something that's not in Genesis at all, but sounds reasonable to the speaker.

"We're only human and have no business questioning the inspired word of God". I call this the "We are not worthy" answer.

[Mushinto]

Why do the pagans and atheists spend so much time trying to prove religious people are wrong?

[ArtificialGrape]

Originally Posted by Mushinto

Why do the pagans and atheists spend so much time trying to prove religious people are wrong?

Have you asked snowbird why he spends so much time arguing against Islam?

Speaking for myself, here are a few reasons:

• Religious faith is dangerous.
• Religion is not compatible with a sustainable world civilization.
• The religious (certainly Christians) insist on pushing their morals on society as a whole (stem cell research, homosexuality, contraception, abortion).
• Interference with science education and attempts to understand the world/universe that we live in. To many religious people/groups science is a threat to how literally they interpret Genesis, so science must be undermined. Science is not needed because the Bible has the answers, God did it.

-ArtificialGrape

[FifthFreedom]

Originally Posted by rgregoryb

I'll bet you are going to say Moses, incredibly he wrote about his own death.....how did he do that?

J (for the writer or writers who referred to God as Jahweh/Yahweh, "the Lord"), E (for the writer or writers who referred to God as Elohim, "God"), P (for the writer or writers who were concerned with priestly matters) and D (for the writer or writers of Deuteronomy).
JEDP

UM, Joshua wrote the ending of Deuteronomy.

[ksg0245]

Originally Posted by Mushinto

Why do the pagans and atheists spend so much time trying to prove religious people are wrong?

It isn't so much trying to prove them wrong as it is getting them to support their claims with objective, verifiable evidence.

[Japle]

ksg0245, I think what you mean is "trying to get them to support their claims with objective, verifiable evidence".

They can't actually do it, but challenging them to try keeps them on their toes.

[ksg0245]

Originally Posted by Japle

ksg0245, I think what you mean is "trying to get them to support their claims with objective, verifiable evidence".

They can't actually do it, but challenging them to try keeps them on their toes.

Right on both counts.

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by Brasso

The traditional Jewish interpretation is that Genesis is written in parable form. A story, that while true, is meant to give insight rather than a scientific record.

Well, a parable does not indicate who or what made stars. As far as I'm concerned, current scientific knowledge and research indicates that either the stars were created, or although scientifically impossible, stars formed all by themselves anyway.

Genesis Chap 1 indicates that the Creator made the stars by using His Word. True science cannot refute this claim/assertion, and by the same token, true science can and does prove, beyond all doubt, the stars are actually there.

Go figure huh?

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Well, a parable does not indicate who or what made stars. As far as I'm concerned, current scientific knowledge and research indicates that either the stars were created, or although scientifically impossible, stars formed all by themselves anyway.

It isn't scientifically impossible, we can see stars in various stages of formation all through the cosmos.

Genesis Chap 1 indicates that the Creator made the stars by using His Word. True science cannot refute this claim/assertion, and by the same token, true science can and does prove, beyond all doubt, the stars are actually there.

How is science supposed to refute "the Creator made the stars by using His Word."? What is testable about that claim? What science can, and does, do is show how stars can form without requiring supernatural intervention.

Go figure huh?

I'm still waiting for you to reveal the great secret of Lucy's knee, it's only been four years so far but Duke Nukem Forever finally came out so I suppose anything is possible.

[ksg0245]

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Well, a parable does not indicate who or what made stars.

Doesn't it say "he also made the stars"?

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

As far as I'm concerned, current scientific knowledge and research indicates that either the stars were created, or although scientifically impossible, stars formed all by themselves anyway.

Could you please provide links to both the research demonstrating the impossibility of stars forming by themselves, and the research indicating they were "created"?

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Genesis Chap 1 indicates that the Creator made the stars by using His Word. True science cannot refute this claim/assertion,

That's all it is; an unsupported assertion by an unknown long dead author.

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

and by the same token, true science can and does prove, beyond all doubt, the stars are actually there.

It does so by observation and experimentation. Have any deities been observed by any scientists?

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Go figure huh?