Talk:Genesis

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
! This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Conservlogo.png

The formatting for the Bible verses should probably be condensed into paragraph form.

That's a good idea. It is too long in the current formatting

Do you need the full text rather than just a link to a source? If you are going to have the full text, might as well make another namespace and let people link there. --Mtur 19:11, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It's far from the full text, if you know the Bible at all! Its just the most quoted and relevant passage from the book!--CWilson 19:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Contents

Serpent versus Satan

I clarified that the "serpent" in the Garden of Eden is not universally thought to have been Satan. I am Christian and I was taught that the serpent probably wasn't Satan (because God cursed all serpents because of the serpent's role in Genesis, and why would God curse an entire species of animals for the actions of Satan? Even if Satan "posessed" the creature, could an animal have possibly resisted?). In any event, in the Jewish tradition, the serpent is also just a serpent and not Satan. JesusSaves 00:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

You didn't clarify anything. First, I've seen your edits; you like to make a few word aditions or detractions here and there in various articles, but you never make these corrections flow with the rest of the body. The results just make the whole look silly. Second, Genesis 3:15 is clear that God wasn't cursing a snake; the word serpent is just another title for Satan. And snakes don't talk to people and convince them to grab some fruit, much less cause people do disobey God. Karajou 10:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Please try again. In particular, read the surrounding passages when you try to understand the Bible. Genesis 3:14, clearly says:
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.
(emphasis added) Serpents walked on four legs before God cursed them. The notion that they no longer talk is irrelevant. In the Garden they did. That lions are no longer herbivores doesn't mean they weren't that way in the Garden. I understand that you may not interpret the Bible literally, but I do. Don't attack me for it.
I should add, Satan is called "serpent" in the New Testament. No where in the Old Testament is he called that, outside of that particular reading of Genesis. JesusSaves 11:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Then which of the 2700 species of serpent was cursed? Snakes don't talk people into disobeying God; Satan does. This is about Genesis; not about what people think regarding the New Testament. Is there any sentence within the Book of Genesis which states "believed by many in the Christian tradition to have been Satan in the form of a serpent"? Is there anywhere in the entire Old Testament which states "authors of the New Testament believe..."? Did Moses write "I Believe Jesus to have been..."? The answer is no. That means you can knock off your strange edits. Karajou 11:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Is there anything in the Garden of Eden account of Genesis that suggests the serpent is Satan other than your say so? Do you think the authors simply forgot to mention Satan's name? Genesis does *NOT* identify that serpent as Satan. You do. My religion rteaches me that the Bible is the literal word of God handed down to me. It does not teach me that Karajou's non-literal interpretation of the Bible has any weight at all. Why you are so hostile to me because I choose to read the Bible literally and make very fair edits idetifying (a) what the Bible actually says ("serpent") and (b) how many, but not all, Christians interpret that ("serpent is Satan") is beyond me. If you strive for accuracy and do not want extra-biblical material in the text of the article, then the sentence should read "a serpent" without any reference to Satan. I merely added the (extra-Biblical, but correct) parenthetical that many Christians believe the serpent to be Satan because so many Chriatians do thoughtlessly accept that interpretation, even though Genesis doesn't expressly say that. I didn't mean to offend you, but your article has strayed into your personal interpretation of the Bible, and away from what the Bible literally says.
That's what you should have done in the first place. The hostility was the other way around, and it was based on you getting very close to getting booted from the site because you chose to include nonsense, the nonsense being the extra-Biblical thing you claim is true, and your sheer demand...DEMAND...that it be included, instead of working with the rest of us as to the best way to show it. I'm not going to tolerate any book of the Bible being made to look silly. Either work with us in that regard or leave. Karajou 12:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Ah, but the Bible is only meant to be taken literally when I want it to be! (excuse my irony!) --Petrus 12:34, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
No...it's to be taken for what it is. It's not subject to individual interpretations. Karajou 13:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Isn't part of the protestant reformation about allowing individual interpretations? If not, who's interpretation is correct? Lutheran? Roman Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Methodist? Presbyterian? Calvinism? Any one of the thousands of congregational churches? To say that there is only one correct interpretation (yours) is a view that most Christians across the world would dispute. --Mtur 14:49, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
No, the hostility started with you, Karajou. I added something. I explained why. Evidently, you disagreed and so you (a) changed it back and then (b) insulted my contributions generally, without any provocation save that you didn't care for my post. Also evidently, you consider "working with you" to be "reading your mind" as no one here "pre-clears" their edits with you (I wonder, with whom do you pre-clear your edits before making them?). I didn't even think my post was at all controversial. Why? (A) The Bible says "serpent" not Satan (B) Many (though not all) Christians believe that the "serpent" was really Satan. Those are two statements of fact, and so how noting those two facts makes Genesis look "silly" is beyond me. JesusSaves 19:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
If you intend to continue this fight, then I'm going to boot you from the site. Last warning. Karajou 19:41, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
If that's the only arrow in your quiver, then I already won the fight. Still, I guess you can at least get the last word.JesusSaves 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure if this debate is over, but as one who believes that the serpent was (or was inhabited by) Satan, (and not "thoughtlessly"), I have to support JesusSaves in arguing that the article should actually say what Genesis says, i.e. referring to "serpent", not "Satan", although it being Satan can (should?) be in parenthesis, along the line of JesusSaves' edit. Philip J. Rayment 21:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you, and I would agree with him, but when he added a line refering to a New Testament difference when Genesis should stand on it's own, and kept demanding to put it back in when removed, then wanting to argue with me about it without even bothering to work together to create the best article possible on the subject...a line has to be drawn somewhere. Karajou 22:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Changes

First and foremost, this article is about the book of Genesis. It has to describe Genesis; it has to describe the Creation, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Sodom, Abraham, etc. It cannot open up with with a two-sentence description, then go into a spurious theory about unidentified authors named for letters. And it also does not need to repeat the entire book word for word...only selected verses need to be quoted. What say you? Karajou 00:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course! An encylopedia needs to refer, not to quote. But if it refers to one story, then it has to refer to all of them. The authorial theories that most of the rest of the world subscribes to also need a section, complete with references, without using loaded words such as 'spurious' about them and assuming that people aren't adult enough to consider them for themselves. --Petrus 12:30, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Archaeological notes

There is a book entitled Halley's Bible Handbook, by Dr. Henry M. Halley, and when he's telling the story of Genesis he has "archaeological notes" between Biblical lines, i.e. when he tells of the Tower of Babel he has the remains of a ziggurat which has been claimed by archaeologists as the Tower itself, and this is described in sort of a sideline. The same thing could happen here, like in photos that illustrate the article, and the relevent info added to the pics. Karajou 20:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

In that case it would need to use the latest research, as represented by Finkelstein and Silberman's The Bible Unearthed (Touchstone, 2002). --Petrus 12:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Good resources are the norm. I generally don't like the latest ones, because a lot of them are very clear in their bias against the Bible. But I won't close them off completely either. Karajou 13:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Petrus' and my edits

Despite agreeing on the Biblical creation account talk page that a particular view should not be put as though it is the correct one, Petrus has done just that in this article. I have rewritten (and moved) that for what it is; a particular view.

However, I removed completely the claim that "day" ("yom") in Genesis 2:4 refers to a single 24-hour day. I'd like some evidence that people (other than Petrus) do actually claim this. I've heard many times the almost-opposite argument that as Genesis 2:4 uses yom to refer to a long period of time, the days of Genesis 1 must also be long periods of time. I don't recall ever hearing anyone claim that yom in Genesis 2:4 must be a 24-hour day.

Philip J. Rayment 09:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

In ancient Hebrew, yom meant day. NousEpirrhytos 17:27, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I agree. But "day" has a range of meanings, including a long period of time, or an era ("In my father's day..."). The same applies to yom. Philip J. Rayment 22:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

needless revert

I reverted Petrus' change from

  • One of these claimed contradictions is that chapter 2 appears to describe the creation of animals after the creation of Adam

to

  • One of these claimed contradictions is that chapter 2 describes the creation of animals after the creation of Adam

His edit note was, "'describes', not 'appears to describe': we're talking linguistic fact here, not opinion".

However, the sentence in the article is talking about the meaning of the narrative, not the meaning of the words. The words "cats" and "dogs" in the sentence, "it's raining cats and dogs" mean feline and canine creatures, but the phrase as a whole has the meaning that its raining heavily, not that felines and canines are falling from the clouds. Similarly, if we have a sentence saying, "Mrs. Smith sent her son to Melbourne High School", and later another sentence saying, "Mrs. Smith breast fed her son", that doesn't mean that she did this after sending him to high school. Whether these examples are accurate analogues of the passage in question or not is beside the point. The point is that claiming that the narrative has a particular meaning with the justification that the phrase in isolation has a particular meaning, when others dispute that one follows from the other, is to put a particular point of view as if it's a fact.

Philip J. Rayment 06:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, yes. Wonderful wriggle! My edit referred to the literal meaning of the words - which I thought people like you were rather keen on - rather than their over-all interpretation. I have now made that clear. (What you mean, of course, is that you don't like the implications of what the text actually says: I can't say I blame you.) --Petrus 12:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
You thought wrong (as I find so often with anti-creationists; they frequently have little idea of the view that they so readily disparage). Creationists are "keen on" what the author meant. The author did not always mean things to be taken literally (think metaphors, parables, etc.). Philip J. Rayment 22:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Except, of course, in chapter one! ;) --Petrus 05:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
No, not except chapter 1. The same principle applies there, but it doesn't contain any (that I can think of) metaphors, etc. Chapter 1 was to be understood as actual history. Philip J. Rayment 05:48, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Hmm! Uncanny how this [1] page seems to have anticipated virtually all your arguments! ;) --Petrus 11:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Not uncanny at all. This sort of debate has been going on for centuries. I have a (facsimile reproduction of a) copy of a book answering alleged contradictions, that was published in 1874! This was not reprinted as a curiosity, but because the alleged contradictions that it answers are still being wheeled out by bibliosceptics today! So the site didn't anticipate the answers; it was trying to "poison the well" in advance of those answers. I notice that its dismissals of the answers are are weak as water. For example, its response to "That is to be taken metaphorically" merely ridicules those giving that answer, and totally ignores that Bible-believers accept that there is metaphor in the Bible, but that it can be readily identified, and they don't give this answer where metaphor is not involved. Philip J. Rayment 19:03, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
'It's literal - except why I say so'? Sure - "When I use a word... it means just what I choose it to mean." (Humpty Dumpty) --Petrus 06:06, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
That's not what I said, not what I meant, and not what it amounts to. Philip J. Rayment 06:37, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Removed the following edit:

By the most optimistic estimates, then, nothing in Genesis was written less than a thousand years after the events it attempts to describe, which isn't to say the authors may not have drawn on earlier texts. After all, no works from the Roman period survive in the authors' handwriting, yet the authenticity of, say, the letters of Cicero is rarely disputed. However, the most recent historical and archeological research reported and collated by Finkelstein and Silberman, among others, suggests that the Torah is unlikely to have been written much before the 7th century BC.

This line of reasoning was applied beginning in the mid-1800s, and was thoroughly disproved. The editor also states that Cicero is undisputed despite having no written evidence in the author's handwriting, yet he tries to disprove Genesis as being no older than the 7th century B.C., and this based on revisionist works by Finkelstein and Silberman. This is evidence of double-standards. If one can accept Cicero based on no evidence, then one can accept the Bible as being written in a far older time than the 7th century B.C....unless the editor has a personal dislike for the Bible, as does Finkelstein and Silberman. Karajou 19:10, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Can you find me one interdisciplinary biblical scholar of note who is not in the employ of an evangelical or evangelically-related institution who believes the Bible to have been written any earlier than 722 BCE? Why are you afraid to admit that the bible is only 2700 years old? In fact, if you knew anything about linguistics, you'd know that Hebrew writing does not go back much farther than that (to 1000 BCE), and if the bible had been written, say, 3500 years ago the language would be considerably different, in fact, it would have bordered on proto-Semitic. Additionally, it would have been written in a script unknown to the Jews themselves as they did not develop their first alphabet, borrowing from the Phonecians, until late in the 11th century BCE. (Thus we see just one of the benefits of true scholarship). NousEpirrhytos 17:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Why do you try to exclude some scholars on the basis of religious affiliation? That is unfair discrimination and biased.
Accepting a late date of compilation would require accepting that the record is not eyewitness testimony for a large part of it, and would make other parts of the Bible incorrect. For example, Jesus referred to the writings of Moses. So if Moses didn't write them, Jesus was wrong.
I strongly suspect that your claims about the origin of Hebrew are wrong. Even if you are correct with that, it doesn't follow that the Israelites didn't use another language (and translate later). Remember Moses was raised in Pharaoh's house in Egypt, and Egypt had writing, so Moses would have been able to write. Do you think that no other Israelite of his time could write? That's would be nonsense. Ergo, the Israelites had a written language (whether or not it was Hebrew) from the time of Moses at the latest.
Philip J. Rayment 22:56, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
'For example, Jesus referred to the writings of Moses. So if Moses didn't write them, Jesus was wrong.' Ah, now there's a point (albeit a very old one based, as usual, on backward reasoning that attempts to derive fact from belief) - and what might that suggest, I wonder? Follow the logic! --Petrus 05:35, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
That was not meant as a line of reasoning, but as an explanation of the consequences. Philip J. Rayment 06:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Question on text

It's been a while since I read the text, but why does Noah place a curse on Canaan after Ham sees him naked? Nematocyte 06:13, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

The account doesn't spell it out. Philip J. Rayment 07:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
According to the narrative, Noah was in a drunken slumber - and naked - when Ham walked into his tent (Gen 6:22). Ham then told his brothers about it, who then covered Noah with a blanket in such a manner as not to see his nakedness (Gen 6:23). Then Noah awoke, and knew what Ham had done to him (Gen 6:24), and pronounced a curse, specifying that Canaan would be a servant of servants to his brethren (Gen 6:25).
Ham must have done something obvious to Noah as to allow Noah to "know about it" after he awoke, as he definately had more than a hangover. Merely telling the brothers that Dad's naked wasn't enough, and some writers speculated was that Ham took advantage of his father's nakedness and quite possibly raped him, then boasted about it, hence the anger from Noah at knowing what Ham done. As to the curse of Canaan...the sons of Ham, according to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10, populated the southern Middle East, Egypt, and Africa. Africans for generations have been kept in a servile manner in one form or another, including American slavery, South African apartied, the current crisis in the Sudan, and others. Karajou 09:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
The problem with that last part is that I don't think there's any correlation between Canaan and Africans. Africans likely descended from Cush, another of Ham's sons, but not from Canaan, the one with the curse. Philip J. Rayment 10:19, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Africans did what? This is too funny. More accurate would be that Cush decended from Africans (but so did we all). NousEpirrhytos 17:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Claiming that Cush (a character in biblical history) descended from Africans because we all descended from Africans (an aspect of the atheist origins myth) is a silly amalgam of two opposing ideas. Philip J. Rayment 23:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

This is supposed to be about the Book of Genesis

This is not an article to spout off every crank theory as to why Genesis should be doubted. Karajou 19:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Nor, of course, is it an article to spout off every crank theory as to why Genesis should be believed. It should reflect the research - all of it. But I see that it has now been locked, presumably in order to prevent that. And so Conservapedia moves yet further down the inevitable path of self-discreditation... --Petrus 05:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I've seen too many edits from people doing their best to discredit the Bible, but all they have is opinion, and not science. The "letters" theory within the "Authorship" subheading is the only one allowed here, as it is this theory that nearly all debunkers have claimed as evidence against Genesis; this theory was also thoroughly debunked as being the opinions of the men who postulated it. They had no hard evidence backing up their claims. Karajou 09:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
What precisely is your definition of science?
The "letters theory"? You mean the Documentary Hypothesis? Not really debunked, just changed 'round a bit. Real bible scholars know that the bible was written by several authors with several purposes. NousEpirrhytos 17:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
You just answered it. "not really debunked, just changed 'round a bit." Who's doing the changing, I wonder? And just who are these "real" Bible scholars who know these several authors they claim wrote it? Just what were these scholars' motives? And who exactly were these authors? Don't you even see what is going on? A bunch of scholars have made a claim that certain people wrote the Bible according to the "documentary hypothesis", and they cannot even name them, let alone prove their theory. Karajou 21:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
One need not give them names like "Charles" or "Franklin" - they didn't sign their works as such. As to the scholars: R.E. Friedman, "Who Wrote the Bible?", P.C. Craigie, "The Old Testament: Its Background, Growth & Content" and Rev. Ken Collins, "The Torah in modern scholarship" (the last can be found on the web). --21:24, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
It can't reflect all the research; it has to be selective and only reflect the most relevant and accurate research. Of course there will still be disputes about what qualifies, but a lot of the "research" is not worth including. Philip J. Rayment 06:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Why? Which research is not acceptable? Is research from apologists acceptable? NousEpirrhytos 17:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Is research by critics acceptable? Karajou 21:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Which research? I put it in my previous message: research that is the most relevant and accurate. Yes, that can be from both sides, but it should be from experts, not amateur bibliosceptics (for example). Other than being an evangelical atheist with qualifications in scientific fields, I don't know what justification there is for including Richard Dawkins as an authority in the Conservapedia talk:Alleged Bible contradictions page, for example. Philip J. Rayment 23:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
He isn't quoted as an 'authority', merely as a 'critical scholar', following a complaint retailed by Conservative that the critics aren't multidisciplinary enough. You can't have it both ways! --Petrus 05:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
If you are quoting a 'critical scholar' in support of an argument, you are using him as some sort of 'authority'. I didn't notice Conservative's complaint, and wouldn't agree with it, as you've stated it there at least. Philip J. Rayment 06:40, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

The Fourth Day

With the fourth day there is a problem. Either the light on the first day is the Sun, as I was always taught, and the Sun was then placed in the sky on the fourth day. Which seems illogical. Or the Sun was created after the plants on the forth day. Which is impossible. Then I learned in science that on the early Earth, the atmosphere was cloudy with heavy gases like methane and ammonia. When the plants began to form they filtered the atmosphere and the Sun appeared in the sky. So the verse then makes sense.--Mike M 09:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

But Jesus beheld them and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God, all things are possible. Matthew 19:26. Karajou 17:00, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't see a problem at all. The Bible says that God created light on the first day, and the Sun on the fourth day, contrary to what you were taught. Why does that seem illogical, and why is it impossible for the Sun to be created 24 hours after the plants?
What you learnt in science class is a non-biblical view, so trying to mesh that with the biblical view is illogical. It's quite believable that the plants survived for 24 hours without the sun, especially given that there was another (temporary) source of light. But how did the plants survive without the sun for however long it took them to filter the atmosphere?
Philip J. Rayment 10:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I enjoyed your discussion. User:Order 5 April, 12:40 (AEST)
Phil, based on the "hands" argument you raised on the Alleged Bible contradictions page, I humbly suggest you steer clear of using words like logical or illogical. "...why is it impossible for the Sun to be created 24 hours after the plants?" -- ever heard of photosynthesis? Hey, if you were right above that yom could mean a long, indeterminate period (a "when") why are you insisting on a 24 hour day? Oh, what about Genesis 2, the plants came after Adam in that one. What logic are you searching for or professing to be expert in? NousEpirrhytos 17:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I'd appreciate it if you'd actually try and answer or refute my questions/arguments instead of just dismissing them as though they are self-evidently incorrect. Of course I've heard of photosynthesis, but plants can survive 24 hours without the sun, can't they? Just like day, yom can mean a 24-hour day or an indefinite period of time depending on the context. The context of Genesis 1 (numbered days, days have evenings and mornings), indicates normal days, not indefinite periods of time. Without looking it up, from memory the Genesis 2 reference to plants is specifically to planting the ones that were in the garden, not a general reference to the creation of plants. Philip J. Rayment 23:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Phil, Being too literal just plays into the hands of the secularist. If God separated the light from the darkness and created day and night 1:4-5. Why did he do it again 1:14? --Mike M 23:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Genesis doesn't say that he did it again in 1:14. Compromising what the Bible actually means with secular viewpoints plays into their hands. Standing firm on God's word doesn't. Philip J. Rayment 23:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Revised Standard Version: Gen.1:4-5"...and God separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night..." Gen. 1:14 "And God said,"Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night..."
Hmmm, I guess I read it too quickly and was looking specifically for references to light and dark, not day and night.
So to answer your question, God separated light from dark on day 1, when he created light. But this was a temporary light, as the sun wasn't created until day 4. On day 4, he created the sun to take over the role of separating day from night.
Why He did it that way is probably a theological question, and one I've heard numerous times was so that we would understand (from the Sun not being created until day 4) that the Sun is not the source of all life and therefore not to be worshipped.
Philip J. Rayment 11:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
The only way to answer what the Jewish writer of Genesis meant would be to consult a Jewish commentary. Rabbi Rashi (1040-1105) wrote the first comprehensive commentary of the Talmud. He both interpreted day as being a longer period of time and said that the Sun was created on the first day and placed in the sky on the fourth day. I see no better answer then that.--Mike M 11:49, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
It's not the "only" way, and Rashi's opinions are refuted here. Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Problem with this sentence

There are a couple of mistakes in this sentence in "authorship": such a man did have the eductation necessary to accomplish this during that time in history. obviously eductation is a spelling mistake and should be corrected. There is also a more subtle error - the sentence implies that Moses actually existed. OK he might well have done, but is it proven? PS - I'm not trying to pick an argument here, honest. Totnesmartin 13:50, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I've fixed the spelling error; thanks for pointing it out.
How do you prove whether a historical figure existed? That is, is it proven that Josephus existed, or Solomon, or Julius Caesar, or Captain Cook? What sort of "proof" would you like? I would say that there is as much evidence for Moses as some of those others.
Philip J. Rayment 22:12, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

That's a fair point, for instance Socrates has no proof of existence. I suppose it depends on personal belief in the end. My personal feeling is that, the further back in time you go, the less likely someone's existence woulkd be. David and solomon I can believe in easily, Moses maybe, but before that...? Totnesmartin 06:29, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I think that Moses' authenticity is pretty-well accepted, as is Abraham's, and he preceded Moses by quite a bit. It depends on personal belief to the extent of whether we are going to accept the available evidence. Philip J. Rayment 09:24, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Problems with consistency

Why does the book of Genesis offer differing accounts of sequence of things created, one right after another? If this account is taken as "fact," as "literal history," as many christians seem to wish us to take it, what are we to make of this clear contradiction?

"GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

So, what was created first? Man or beast? When a "literal history" has this sort of consistency problems in the first section, doubts will no doubt erupt, as they no doubt should. Artiefisk 23:52, 18 February, 2008(EST)

See Creation story. Philip J. Rayment 00:58, 19 February 2008 (EST)
Personal tools