Evolution, Dinosaurs and Genesis.. A New Take..

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Bells, May 23, 2014.

  1. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Actually it was pointed out recently that the budget cuts to the CSIRO are equal to the amount wasted on the "chaplains in schools" program. Further more changes have been made to this program to prevent the money being spent on psychologists and social workers which ARE needed, when questioned on this our chief biggot (cory bernady) stated that our country is a Christian country and that religion is important. If things like psychologists are wanted the states should pay for it (after ripping 80 billion our of the state budgets I might add)

    As to why this is not happening here? The cynic in me would say its because a 6000 year old earth isn't Catholic Church doctrine and those bastards (Abbott, Andrews etc) are Catholics
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    Billvon: From your Post #20
    You just made me realize that there are three creation stories, when I was only aware of two.

    In the first few verses of Genesis, the creation of male & female are briefly described as being accomplished on the sixth day.

    Later, Adam is described as being the only creature without a mate & Eve is created from flesh taken from his side (not a rib as in various translations).​

    You seem to be describing a third version.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,632
    Still two I think. The first, from the Priestly source, describes a six day creation with a rest on the seventh. The second, from the Yahwist source, describes a different order of creation, with a garden, snake, woman-from-rib etc.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,407
    I don't think that they are stupid exactly. Sometimes a great deal of creative thought goes into trying to harmonize a literalist reading of the first chapters of Genesis with science (or at least with some selected aspects of science, like dinosaurs in this case).

    It's kind of inevitable, I guess, as long as parents retain the right to raise their own children. Parents are going to indoctrinate their kids with the things that they believe in, and many people believe in some pretty weird things. Having the state take over raising children obviously has dangers of its own. Not the least is that it would make it much easier to indoctrinate everybody in whatever the ruling elites want the public to believe. (To some extent, public schooling already performs that function.)
     
  8. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,407
    It might depend in large part on how it's taught and on what it's being taught as.

    Unlike here in the United States where there is no religious education in the public schools, the United Kingdom includes religious education in its secondary curriculum. I've seen the UK's RE syllabus and it's reasonable and well-intentioned, intended to acquaint young people with the breadth and scope of the religion phenomenon and provide them with some rudimentary understanding of the contents of the major religious traditions. The goal is to teach this material informatively and non-judgementally.

    I wouldn't have any objection at all to these kind of RE teachers informing their students what YEC is (along with creationism more broadly, like ID) and giving them some idea of where these ideas come from and which religious groups are likely to champion such things.

    But I would have big-time objections to including something like YEC in the secondary science curriculum.
     
  9. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    The Bible clearly states one overall creation. The other creation takes place after the overall creation. It is the creation of Adam and Eve, in an isolated area of the already created world. Adam and Eve were not the first human beings. They came after the sixth day creation of humans. How do I know? Because that is what it says.

    jan.
     
  10. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,086
    It does? As I recall in the first story all the animals were created and then man was created. In the second story Adam and Eve were created and then the animals were created and the happy couple named them.

    Is that wrong?

    edit to add:

    Just remembered it is wrong. God created the animals after adam in the second one and then created a woman because the animals were not suitable companions.
     
  11. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    origin,

    Yeah.

    Do you recall the beginning of the 2nd chapter? Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
    Are you not aware that Adam was placed in a specific geographical location, as opposed to all the land?

    That the creation of plants and animals, were created for Adam to name them?

    That Eve's off-spring, Cain, upon being expelled, built a city, and got married?

    Are you telling me you lack the intelligence to at least bare in mind that they aren't two contradictory events, explaining the same thing?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Er, yeah!


    Arf! Arf! Arf!
    Stop it! You're too funny.

    jan.
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,632
    No, they both describe the creation of the world in very different orders. They were written by different authors. The two stories originally used two different words for God (Elohim and Yaweh.) They are two stories. Pretty much all Biblical scholars acknowledge this.

    Incorrect. Let's review Genesis 2:

    "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." - Creation of Man
    "The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed." - He took that man and he put him in the Garden of Eden
    "And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” " - That man is still alone, so God creates other creatures to help him.
    "Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them." - God then creates cows, eagles, every terrestrial animal. (And uses the name Adam for the first time.)

    Best re-read your Bible; you are misinformed.
     
  13. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    It's not about being misinformed, it is about reading, and understanding what is written. The second chapter, and the rest of the Bible is an account of Adam (firstly), Eve, and their off-spring.

    jan.
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,632
    You may believe that, but that is not what the Bible says. Given that, there is nothing wrong with you claiming the Bible is inaccurate, or deciding that your interpretation, rather than the Bible's, is the correct one.

    However if you claim that, you also can't claim "The Bible clearly states one overall creation" or "How do I know? Because that is what it says." In fact it says the opposite, as shown above.
     
  15. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    billvon,

    No it doesn't. Plus, aside from fundamental Christian doctrine, there is no need to assume that there is any contradiction with the two chapters.

    You quoted:

    Not the creation of man in the plural sense, but in the singular sense.

    A significant word here is ''ground'', which is a translation of the word adamah, which relates to a specific plot of land.

    It is obvious that ''man'' in this instance is singular, not plural.

    I'm not sure where ''comparable to him'' comes from, but I understand (thus far) what you mean.

    ''Out of the ground'' is translated once again, from the word adamah which refers to a specific plot of land, whereas the first chapter say's ''Let the earth (erets) bring forth beasts and so on.

    It isn't the first time God uses the name ''Adam'' for the first time. The name adam refers to man, and, mankind. In the first chapter God uses the term ''adam'' in His reference to ''mankind'' (plural).

    jan.
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,632
    The actual words of the Bible prove that it does. Again, you can ignore the Bible if you like.
    Were cattle created before or after Man was created?
     
  17. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    billvon,

    So everything I've just pointed out to you, means nothing?

    Cattle was created before mankind, and, after a specific man (Adam) was placed in a specific portion (which had no cattle until he was placed there) of an already inhabited world.

    That's what it say's. :shrug:

    jan.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,632
    Sorry, Genesis 2 disagrees with you. Man came first:

    "This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 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; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

    Then came cattle:

    "Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them."

    That's what it actually says. It doesn't say that God created some copies of cattle, or just made some cows in the garden. It says he created EVERY beast of the field - and he did it after he created Man.
     
  19. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    God formed the beast and such, just as he formed Adam (singular). The word ''form'' is translated from the Hebrew word ''yatsar''. ''To fashion'' is also a primary meaning of the word ''yatsar''
    But He commanded the earth to bring forth beasts, and He created man in His own image, both male and female.

    Do you not see the difference?

    I think you really need to look into this properly, unless this so-called contradiction is necessary to your belief system.

    jan.
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,632
    I find that once someone starts trying to redefine words to make their point, further discussion is pointless.

    I believe that words mean things. You can believe whatever you like.
     
  21. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396
    Where the KJV reads "Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life", the original language said "Jesus rode to Mars on a tricycle".
     
  22. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    billvon,

    IOW you're not interested in what it actually means, you just prefer to believe what you would like it to mean because it suits you.

    In this case you believe whatever makes you happy. You're nothing but anti-God.

    jan.
     
  23. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    Arf! Arf!

    jan.
     

Share This Page