Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by timojin, Jun 27, 2016.
Genesis got it all wrong.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Ah, but Genesis 2 says that man came first, then animals. Which is sort of backwards. (And of course contradicts Genesis 1.)
I Take Genesis 1 chapter 2 is for other situation . Shows disobedience of ma.
Dr. I like your style , trow a rick and hide away
"Trow a rick"? WTF?
A rock , as a metaphor. You usually come up with a criticism , but you hardly ever post, probably you must be to sensitive
But not illiterate.
Look, it's one thing to criticise someone's ideas, but Tim's first language is not English. It's the depth of trollery to mock someone's writing.
You're derailing a discussion I'm trying to have with someone.
Apologies. I'll ignore him.
It's really pretty clear. In Genesis 2, man comes first, then everything else.
Line 5 - no plants yet; no water on land yet
Line 6 - God creates streams and rivers
Line 7 - he creates man
Line 8 - he creates a garden
Line 9 - he creates trees
Line 19 - he creates animals
Line 22 - he creates woman
So per Genesis 2, first came man, then plants, then animals, then woman.
Dr_Toad - I don't think you need reminding that not everyone grew up speaking English? Please keep that in mind - that comment was unnecessary.
Thanks. I've been corrected, and I apologize.
Still wrong. The bible is full of other factual errors too, as long as we are being serious about science. A mustard seed isn't the smallest seed, and the Great Flood never happened.
Sorry. I don't discuss chapter 2, The order of evolution is in chapter 1
I don't think I have to print you chapter one , since you have # 2 from were you are quoting you must have # 1
If you want to base your argument on # 1 I will not debate.
I don't think is proper to equalize how it was said before 2000 years ago to the present language .
I am sure if you compare writings from 200 years ago and some meaning you will find discrepancy
That is great you are literate. Your comments are not more than 5 word if any , I have not sean any writing from you about 30 to 49 word. Is that a reason that you are afraid to show your literacy ?
Why do you ignore chapter 2 of Genesis?
Chapter # 2 Is a set up to show. Man to be in a comfortable place ( paradise ) but to be alone he is not satisfied so he should have a companion . So a companion is provided ( woman ) a woman is more restless
She listen to different people ( I don't believe in a talking snake ) people from outside of the paradise , got convinced by them and then convinced tha man , then they disobeyed the law , and consequences have taken place. I don't believe Chapter # 2 have much to do with creation and evolution
This should be moved to the religion section unless you are going to go back to just denying evolution. I know that I was probably the one that derailed this thread so we should probably steer it back on path.
A common ancestor simply means if you and chimp were to look back at your great-great-great.......great-great grandfather they would be the same primate. It has nothing to do with religions or atheism.
But the meaning is factually wrong. It's not just a matter of language differences. And besides, wouldn't God know how to communicate effectively? Or is the Bible just the work of people?
Well, if you only believe bits and pieces of _anything_ and throw out the rest you can force it to make sense*. But that is due to very creative editing on your part, not due to any accuracy in the source material.
* - After all, Jesus turned water to wine. If you assume that he took the water, used it to grow grapes, then harvested the grapes and made wine - and the Bible just left all that out because they didn't think it was important - then he doesn't even need any supernatural powers to do so.
Separate names with a comma.