Difference between revisions of "Talk:Genesis 1-8 (Translated)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
British cons (talk | contribs) (usual Liberal complaint) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Perhaps chapters one and two could be combined in some way so that they clearly tell the same story in the same order? Liberals often claim that they show two differently ordered creation stories and it would be a good idea to clarify this.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:09, 11 October 2009 (EDT) | Perhaps chapters one and two could be combined in some way so that they clearly tell the same story in the same order? Liberals often claim that they show two differently ordered creation stories and it would be a good idea to clarify this.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:09, 11 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
:That's a major re-write, something we're not doing. While I agree we should make clear that Genesis 2:6-25 expands on what happened in Genesis 1:26-27, re-writing Genesis is a more drastic step than that action requires. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:31, 11 October 2009 (EDT) | :That's a major re-write, something we're not doing. While I agree we should make clear that Genesis 2:6-25 expands on what happened in Genesis 1:26-27, re-writing Genesis is a more drastic step than that action requires. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:31, 11 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
| − | |||
== Genesis 1:2 == | == Genesis 1:2 == | ||
If "the waters under the heaven [were] gathered together unto one place, and ... the dry land appear[ed]" on the third day (Gen. 1:9), can it really be said that there were "oceans" on the first day? [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 18:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT) | If "the waters under the heaven [were] gathered together unto one place, and ... the dry land appear[ed]" on the third day (Gen. 1:9), can it really be said that there were "oceans" on the first day? [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 18:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
| − | + | :Take your absurd gotcha questions elsewhere. Maybe wikipedia will appreciate them. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:28, 19 October 2009 (EDT) | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 18:28, October 19, 2009
Perhaps chapters one and two could be combined in some way so that they clearly tell the same story in the same order? Liberals often claim that they show two differently ordered creation stories and it would be a good idea to clarify this.--British_cons (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
- That's a major re-write, something we're not doing. While I agree we should make clear that Genesis 2:6-25 expands on what happened in Genesis 1:26-27, re-writing Genesis is a more drastic step than that action requires. JacobB 15:31, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
Genesis 1:2
If "the waters under the heaven [were] gathered together unto one place, and ... the dry land appear[ed]" on the third day (Gen. 1:9), can it really be said that there were "oceans" on the first day? AngusF 18:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
- Take your absurd gotcha questions elsewhere. Maybe wikipedia will appreciate them. DouglasA 14:28, 19 October 2009 (EDT)