![[Shelbyville Times-Gazette]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate-small.png){kind=small}
Shelbyville, Tennessee ~ Wednesday, December 3, 2008
| Blogs | 
|
|
Answer to some questions
Posted Saturday, March 8, 2008, at 10:05 AM<< Previous | Read comments | Respond | Email link | Next >>
The Bible is not a book of history , but a book of faith.
No man could know all the answers because he would be God.
I have researched some and will try to answer the ones I can.
Question: "Why are there two different Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2?"
Answer: Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…" Later, in Genesis 2:4, it seems that a second, different story of Creation begins. A common misinterpretation is that these two passages are supposed to describe the same creation event but disagree as to the order in which things were created and thereby contradict one another. According to this view, Genesis 1 claims that God created land, then vegetation, then animals, then man, while Genesis 2 claims that God created land, then man, then plants, then animals. In actual fact, while Genesis 1 describes the "Six Days of Creation" (and a seventh day of rest), Genesis 2 covers only one day of that "Creation Week," the sixth day, and there is no contradiction (as we will see).
We will begin with a verse-by-verse examination of the first five verses of the Genesis 2 account (italicized) and finish with a broad overview of the rest of the chapter. As the Genesis 1 passage actually ends in the third verse of the second chapter, we will begin the Genesis 2 account in the fourth verse. We use the New American Standard Bible (NASB) throughout as it is generally recognized as the best formal equivalent (i.e. literal) translation of the text.
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and heaven (v.4). The Hebrew word here translated "account" is "Toledot." It occurs a dozen more times throughout Genesis (5:1, 6:9, 10:1, 32, 11:10, 11:27, 25:12, 13, 19, 36:1, 9 and 37:2) and dozens more times throughout the Old Testament at large, always in reference to human lineage (without exception). The word "day" here refers to an unspecified length of time (e.g. "back in my great-grandfather's day"), rather than to a 24-hour period (e.g. "it will take three days to finish") or to the daylight hours (e.g. "it gets hot during the day"). So, a straightforward reading of the fourth verse would be: "what follows is the human lineage of the heavens and earth in the era that God created them." It does not specify a first day or a second or an eighth day, all of which could apply or none at all.
Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground (v.5). The Hebrew word here translated "field" is "Sadeh." It refers to a smaller piece of land or to a cultivated field. The word "earth" is "Erets.". It refers to a larger piece of land or to the planet as a whole. This is an important distinction, one which we see not only here but elsewhere in Genesis (23:13, for example) and throughout the Old Testament (Leviticus 25:2-3, for example). While the vegetation of Genesis 1:11-12 was of the general sort, the vegetation of Genesis 2:5, 8-9 is of a very specific kind. The "shrubs of the sadeh" and the "plants of the sadeh," refer to agriculture, sadeh meaning a cultivated field.
Notice that there was no agriculture yet because "God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground." In view here are two of the four things necessary for agriculture (man to cultivate the ground and rain, the other two being nutritious dirt and sunlight). Not only did the author plainly state that he was referring specifically to the agricultural plants of a cultivated field, it is further implied by his reference to the two things necessary for agriculture which were at that point still lacking. Moreover, it is rather obvious that he did not mean plants in general as that would be the same as saying that there were no jungles or forests or prairies anywhere because man had not cultivated the ground, which is a ridiculous thought. No, the vegetation here described is that of horticulture. It is husbandry.
But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground (v.6). Notice that land and water (in the form of mist) already existed at this point. It just hadn't rained yet. Genesis 2 is not an account of the creation of land and water; that had already happened in Genesis 1.
Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being (v.7). Here in presenting the "human lineage of the heavens and earth in the era that they were created," the author steps back in the temporal sequence to the sixth day, when God first made man, an appropriate place to start. We see this same literary device -- this stepping back in a temporal sequence for the purpose of greater detail -- elsewhere in the Bible as well. Consider 1 Kings 6-7. In chapter six we read about the construction of Solomon's temple. It is completed by the last verse of the chapter, verse 38: "In the eleventh year, in the month of Bul, which is the eighth month, the house was finished throughout all its parts and according to all its plans. So he was seven years in building it." Then, in the first verse of the next chapter the author moves on to describe the construction of Solomon's palace: "Now Solomon was building his own house thirteen years, and he finished all his house." In the 12th verse, the author finishes with the palace. Then, in the 13th verse of the 7th chapter, he goes back to the beginning of the construction of the temple, thereby stepping back into the temporal sequence which he had completed in the 6th chapter before ever going on to describe the construction of the palace in the 7th.
In the same way, the author of Genesis presents the creation of man on the sixth day in the first chapter. Then, in the second chapter, he goes back to the sixth day to present greater detail for the purpose of the Toledoth which starts in 2:4 (and which lasts all the way up 'til 5:1, where the next Toledoth begins).
The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed (v.8). Here we have the creation of agriculture with the very first garden, created by God for man. This is where man gets his start in husbandry, and we've been tending fields ever since (except of course during that brief stint in the ark). For the sake of brevity we will not expound each of the remaining verses individually. We will paint the rest of the chapter in broad strokes.
Verses 9-14 describe the Garden of Eden and a river which ran through it. The river split into four smaller rivers, each of which ran through a different pre-diluvial territory. Apparently the post-diluvians named some of their rivers and lands after these pre-diluvian ones, similar to how the early American colonists named their cities and states after the ones they left behind (New York, named after the English city of York; New Jersey, named after the Island of Jersey in the English Channel; New Orleans, named after the French city of Orleans, etc).
Verse 15-17 return to the Garden and include the warning against eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In verse 18 we read of God's decision to create a woman for His man, a decision which He no doubt made long before He ever created the first man. The decision is here presented as a lead in to what happens next…
In verses 19-20, God sits Adam down and creates all of the "beasts of the sadeh" and the "birds of the sky" out of the dirt in front of him for him to name. First let's note that, according to the ancient mindset, by naming something you take owner ship of it. So this was a sort of ceremony whereby Adam received these creatures (and by extension, the rest of creation) from God as his own. Second, notice that God didn't recreate every kind of animal for Adam to name, just a select few: the "beasts of the sadeh," (what we would call the beasts of burden -- those who would help man in his agricultural activities) and the "birds of the air" (no doubt for their stunning majesty… as if God was saying to Adam, "You think those beasts of burden are impressive, check these out!"). So Adam wasn't sitting there for weeks naming thousands of animals. Third, consider the fact that God had initially created all of these creatures before He ever made Adam, so Adam didn't get to see God create them. By creating a garden and recreating a few representatives of the animal kingdom right in front of Adam, God was thereby able to show him that He was the Creator of everything (lest some usurper -- i.e. the Devil -- come along later and try to make that claim for himself). Fourth and finally, this exercise was not doubt didactic. Perhaps by it God was able to teach Adam some an important lesson about the uniqueness, beauty and peculiar worth of the gift which he was about to receive… his wife.
Finally, in verses 21-25 God places the priceless jewel in the crown of his creation: He creates woman out of man. And the rest, as they say, is history Comments Showing most recent comments first [Show in chronological order instead] |
Hot topics By the People or By the Judges.(83 ~ 3:04 PM, Dec 3)
I Thought I had Seen It All !
Under the Radar
The Driving Force Behind Me!
Hades, Hell, Sheol, or What?
|
![[Feed icon]](http://www.t-g.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
EM,
Thanks for the offer, I may take you up on it at a later time, but the flower beds, garden and lawn are calling.
This may sound flippant and irreverent but I can say with no small amount of sincerity that so long as good t.v.,books,film and other forms of art are coming forth,I know there is a God.
There's something MORE than just pure necessity that makes for beauty.
There's something that makes one set of electro-chemical reactions (our thoughts and feelings) matter more than another.
If our world was purely physical and accidental,why would any idea,any natural construct,any human-made artifact,have any significance?
But,they do-or we think they do.
That thought,that appreciation,that uplift we get from creativity well-displayed would seem to be our spirits resonating with the source of all that beauty.
When we rail against stupidity or vandalism,the suppression of thought or anything that goes against reason and wonder,we confirm our belief that aesthetics and rationality exist-and exist as more than some survival mechanism for entities that have no value anyway.
So long as we can find sermons in stones,we can find fossil records.
We aren't apt to find much of interest in the degree of reflectivity of an asteroid before we look at a cloud and find a horsy and a ducky (or a map of British Honduras).
But,when we find all these marvels in everyday life that lead to even more fascinating things (and some of them have come from our minds and hands),then we might ponder if our sparks of imagination might not be derived from a greater flame.
Thanks for Firefly and Peanuts,Mandelbrot sets and Blue Rose nebulae,Fanny Crosby,Bing Crosby,David Crosby,Denise Crosby,heritage tomatoes,Shoeless Joe and six-toed kittens.
There's always one more wonder for one more day-even if we have to be the one to make it.
I,for one,am grateful for that blessing.
Sharon,
I have the complete series and the movie, I can hook you up with a set.
Sounds like something I might I to checkout.
The comic series has the same elements and Joss is now doing the Xmen comics now.
I like Simon, Mal, and well Jane of course, he was hilarious. Crap they all had awesome characters, You know the last episode, The Funeral? I love that song. I think the pilot was actually better than the movie was.
IF anyone sees the movie before the series, they are missing out on one of the best TV to Movie experiences ever. So please see the series before watching the movie or you will regret it forever.
It had the luxury of revealing itself a bit at a time.
It didn't go in trying to squeeze everything into about 2 hours.
I wish people would take all the time it takes to tell a story (even if they have to do it a bit at a time) then hush.
Nowadays,we produce too much 'filler' just to hold claim to a slot while sagas with plenty of story yet to unfold are left silent.
Anthologies,mini-series,British-styled series,etc. would work well along with films,film series,serials and traditional weekly programs.
Comics,t.v. and other media are begining to learn this lesson -though not fast enough.
Not everything needs to be a one shot.
Not every book need to be a 25 volume 'trilogy.'
There's a place for short stories,a place for long tales,a reason to pause in relating an event or following a character and picking up the story again when it reveals more of its secrets.
Firefly could have gone on forver-and still could.
The Serenity crew had a lot more adventures we could share and they weren't alone in that universe.
I liked those guys.
I'd love to have Mal and Shepard Book posting in our blogs.
If you think we get interesting NOW....
;)
quantumcat,
You feel the same way about the show as I did. It was wonderful, it was fun, the storyline was so incredibly complex, yet simple laid out that you couldn't stop watching. I have never sat down for more than 2.5 hours EVER to watch something, but this series? I watched ALL of the episodes in 1 day. Yes they are that good.
The movie that came out, Serenity? Well, it sure was good, but the series was a little bit better, I guess it had more atmosphere.
"Firefly" is the best gorram Western in space the frickin' purple-bellies ever sabotaged with pre-emptions,out of sequence episodes and early cancellation.
(Thank you,Fox.)
It was brought to you by Joss Whedon (creator of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Angel") after he read Michael Shaara's 'The Killer Angels'.
(Think Reconstruction after a war involving space settlers versus multinational corporations.)
No aliens.
No cute talking machines.
The precocious kid ain't nothin' like Boxey.
It had good plots,great acting,quaint knitted hats and a mixture of Chinese and Occidental culture.
The premise has the sole superpower being the Alliance (formed from the remnants of China and the U.S. after the Earth is nearly destroyed.)
They more-or-less rule what's left of a galaxy of pioneers,adventurers and gallants.
Serenity is the vessel (a la John Ford's Stagecoach) that carries nine very different members of that future.
After the series' cancellation,the story was continued in a shiny,big-screen movin' picture.
I don't have any great emotional investment in whether extraterrestrial sentients,faerie,Yeti or any other life forms exist.
They do or they don't.
If I get to expecting Truth to conform to me (in any direction),it might make life a bit uncomfortable.
Just realized I forgot the link to NIH. It's been a loooooong day.
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/
Lots of good info.
Sounds interesting, let me know if you find the name of the DVD. I like to hear opinions on both sides, may not agree, but it can make for interesting discussions when you are more aware of other peoples opinions and philosophies. What is Firefly?
Sharon22,
Oh yeah it was very good. There is another documentary I wanted to see but I cannot find the name of the dvd. I saw part of it because of how radical it was... It was about UFO accounts in the Bible. Alot of really interesting theories like the "pillar showing the Israelites the way to promise land". Oh the fiery chariot... Just alot of ideas that I would like to watch to hear more of the opinion of both sides.
No I do not believe in extra-terrestials. Please do not ask me why I don't believe. I am a Firefly fan, if you haven't watched the show then you wouldn't understand.
Check this link out, it's NIH info on stem cell. Stem cell is referred to as transplant. They mention treatment several times but not cure.
It could be either a treatment or a cure, depending on which disease...
Evil Monkey,
Did you see the Alexander the Great documentary also? It was pretty interesting. Yes disturbia it did mention his gay lovers, 2 in particular. It also mentioned that there was a military unit set up with gay lovers, can't remember the specifics though.
Nascarfanatic,
Yes, he did give us the the ability to genetically alter things. I have no opposition to stem cell research, except when aborted babies are used. An adult that makes an active (or an adult family member)decision to donate organs is much different than using a baby that was not given that choice. The one thing that most people do not understand about organ transplant is that it does not cure the disease, it is a treatment, much like placing a person on a medication to treat the disease. I am not an expert on stem cell, but I suspect it would be about the same, it would be a treatment, not a cure.
Isn't that what Jesus did?
I believe God is the Great Healer, but I also believe that some of our most most modern miracles occur within the medical field. Ask any person that has had a heart or lung transplant. God gave those surgeons the ability to perform that specialized surgery, to give folks a second chance at life.
-- Posted by Sharon22 on Tue, Mar 11, 2008, at 2:23 PM
He also gave them the ability to genetically alter things... Clone, stem cells, etc. But why are other's so resistant to the entire realm of medicine? I find taking organs out of one human and placing them in another, no different than harvesting stem cells to prolong life, and cure multiple diseases. Either way you look at it, it could be "playing God". I mean after all, sacrificing one to save another? It's really no different.
Disturbia,
Yes it actually did mention he had gay affairs.
quantumcat, So right you are. I can relate to that. This filthy rag almost got beat to death against the rock.
parkerbrothers,thanks for recommending that wonder-working Power!
Ox gall is supposed to be good at dissolving dirt but the Blood of the Lamb will cleanse away all unrighteousness.
(Have no fear of becoming less colorful.
Christ not only makes your garments spotless and white as snow,he makes your brights even brighter!)
I compare the action of Grace vs. works to cleansers vs. bleach.
One gently separates that which belongs from that which doesn't and restores beauty and freshness as it sanitizes.
The other is harsh and may destroy that which is soiled before it touches the blot.
Souls that are as filthy rags might not take too well to caustic solutions and being pounded against the Rock.
A little soaking and airing out in the Light could launder away the sin and leave the sinner stronger than before.
Ah Alexander the Great...I am betting you the wonderful documentary didn't mention his male lovers did it?
Nascarfanatic,
Please re-read what I wrote and to make it easy I copied it back down here. The "secondary" source refered to was about Alexander the Great, not Jesus and not the Bible. The "primary" source was about Jesus and the Bible. If you can believe a historian that wrote about Alexander the Great 250 years after he lived, why can't I believe in Jesus and what he said when the New Testament, esp. the Gospels were written by his comtemporaries?
"I have stated before I love history. I happened to be watching the history international channel yesterday evening and their was a documentary of Alexander the Great on. Fascinating fellow and excellent documentary. I don't think anyone on here would say he didn't exist or do some of the extraordinary things attributed to him. He even claimed to be god at one point in his life. I found one thing intriging about him, the first historian(Arrian) to write anything about him lived about 250 years after him. He would be considered a secondary source, but he used primary sources available at the time. We have no primary sources available now to prove Alexander the Great existed yet we have no difficulty believing his existance.
There was a great and very wise pharisee named Gamaliel around at the infancy of christianity at stated "for if this plan or action if of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is from God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God." Folks on both sides of this arguement state they believe in God or a god, but some have a hard time believing the Bible (just stories written by man), and others say they believe the Bible is the Word of God. I wonder if some are just fighting against God as Gamaliel predicted about 2000 years ago. I have no problem stating that the Bible is the authentic word of God. The gospels were written by contemporaries of Jesus, who actually worked and lived during the time of his ministry on earth. Paul, an early missionary, gave us a foundation on how many problems can be solved within our churches. Yes, folks within differing denominations will pick and choose what they feel is important, but I have enough faith to believe one of these days Christ will return and those difference will not matter anymore. I believe the whole Bible is important. I also believe that the Holy Spirit exist to tap us on the shoulder per say to guide us in our lives. I love a good discussion on the Bible, think I know scripture fairly well, but head knowledge does not always take precidence over heart knowledge. I think the Egytpians, Greeks and Romans would be offended at being called barbarians, which are just some of the great powers that existed at the time the Bible was being written. The Romans after all were ones that created roads (close to 54,000 miles) some of which are still in existance today. The Egyptians created the pyramids, still a marvel of modern science."
Posted by Sharon22 on Sun, Mar 9, 2008, at 11:31 PM
Also, are you saying that Chistians should not be in the medical field, only non-Christians?
I believe God is the Great Healer, but I also believe that some of our most most modern miracles occur within the medical field. Ask any person that has had a heart or lung transplant. God gave those surgeons the ability to perform that specialized surgery, to give folks a second chance at life.
quantumcat, Call on Christ, the great stain eradicator. Blueberries and wine, no problem either.
My conscience doesn't struggle, only my actions. I do not agree with what you state, because if someone around me that I supposedly trusts tells me to do something that I know is wrong, doesn't mean I will do it. Why would I lower my own being over peer-pressure? I do not see where Satan has anything to do with how I think? He cannot read my mind.
-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Tue, Mar 11, 2008, at 11:32 AM
Evil Monkey, Neither could Eve.
Again,y'all have stretched your limits to touch both minds and hearts with your information and insights.
So,why do I find myself battling distraction within a certain recurring theme?
That egg,those biscuits,those muffins,Mary's family dinner...
While y'all are discussing transubstantiation,I'm picturing legalists with food diaries debating whether to record their wafer and fruit of the vine as blood and flesh (protein) or bread and juice (carbohydrate).
"'While I am waiting on your answer I thought I would toss you another piece of fruit to chew on.
The whole story of Satan's penetration to the conscience was seen in Genesis.
God: Don't eat the fruit.
Satan: Eat the fruit
Eve: Eat the fruit
Adam: This woman you gave me said eat.'"
-parkerbrothers
(A little break from the blog might be warranted. I'll refresh my mind with some church history.)
That Martin Luther!
Not even Dr. Atkins has stirred up as much fervor with a Diet.
(Scripture- I can count on the Bible to bring order to a wayward mind.
Isaiah is always good.)
"Why do you spend money for that which is not bread? and your labor for that which satisfies not? listen diligently to me, and eat you that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness." -Isaiah 5:22
(Hmmm. Could be somebody's hinting I should do more prayer and less fasting.)
As for our conscience,I think it's analagous to those black-light thingies used to find hidden stains.
It reveals to us where the enemy's tried marking his territory.
It doesn't make the choice for us whether we eradicate the stain or just rearrange the furniture to conceal the damage.
My conscience doesn't struggle, only my actions. I do not agree with what you state, because if someone around me that I supposedly trusts tells me to do something that I know is wrong, doesn't mean I will do it. Why would I lower my own being over peer-pressure? I do not see where Satan has anything to do with how I think? He cannot read my mind.
Dianatn,
To answer your question of whether I think I have lived within the realms of what it takes to enter the Kingdom of Heaven I ask you to find the answer I have already given in the past few post.
If you read them and determine that I have already admitted that I do not and that I have to rely on a substitute you read well.
If you read them and determine that I have already admitted that I can never have or do what it takes to enter the Kingdom on my own merits you read even better.
You can stand and plead your case as you see fit and I imagine: "Lord, I have been a good person. I used my conscience that you gave me. It told me that the Quran might be the right way and that the Bible might also have some truth to it and be the right way so I done as much as I could to find the average of them which was very scientific of me. I have truly done what I thought was right."
I choose however to say: "Lord you know what great sins I have committed and what little good if any I have done and I admit that what little good I have done was probably done for the wrong reasons. I do however accept your plan of substitution for atonement of my uncountable sins and thank you for this thoughtful plan."
I had a meeting to go to, I only come on here and read to answer questions or ask them. Got another meeting at 12:00pm.
So do you think that you have kept it good enough to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?
-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Mar 10, 2008, at 11:47 PM
Do you think you are living within the realms of what it takes to enter the Kingdom of Heaven? None of us really know, do we?
You may get to those pearly gates and God say "My son you have been a faithful servant but in your search for the truth you have missed the entire message for my name is Allah".
All this time you have been studying and Living by the Bible when it is the Quran you should have been reading. Is this even possible? Sure it is God said," all things are possible thru me."
Just because you believe certain things does not make them facts unless you too have been having those George Bush conversations with God.
nascarfanatic, Before you roll on the floor laughing to hard it might help you to set up and think realistically for a moment. As always you should remember that God quite frequently gave a command or law that was actually given to teach us something about his sinless character and our sinful nature and his plan of rescue. He taught and teaches in simple and we complex his plan.
Bear in mind also that what we have accepted as the normal in our time for our people may one day seem lunitic to another time of people. The degree of perceived lunitic is almost directly related to the amount of time passed.
It has not been that long ago where the crime of stealing a horse was death by hanging which appears rather extreme for our time. This punishment was considered the norm and easily tolerated a little more than 100 years ago. The punishment you commented on was over 4000 years ago. It does and I agree with you that it appears as being lunitic to my conscience also. Almost 40 times as much (40 x 100 =4000). But I do believe my conscience has been shaped by both the taught good and bad and I did not come pre-wired. God says Don't Eat and Satan say Do Eat. The conscience struggles.
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God. Michael says that he would be all for the abortion of a child conceived b/c of rape, yet God commands the two to get married, ROFL.
Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him. (James 5:14-15 ASV)
Ya'll ever been to the doctor?
Modern archeology would support that nascarfanatic. The footnotes in my Bible state that Yam Suph in Hebrew is the Sea of Reeds. I have no problem with that and actually was taught that fairly early in my biblical teachings.
-- Posted by Sharon22 on Tue, Mar 11, 2008, at 12:37 AM
So, yet another supposedly accurate depiction of a miracle... Oh, and parkerbrothers or whoever said it, why is it that the Bible can get the facts wrong, time and time again and you just pass that off as "secondary"? Exacerbating the situation, is in essence a LIE. So, when you read lies, it is never ok. Still, this being mistranslated, other things being mistranslated, and everything in between only makes you wonder, WHAT IN THE WORLD is accurate? I'm sorry, but if I seek to read a book that will increase my faith, I would hope that it could atleast be truthful, otherwise, what is my faith in?
Evil Monkey, are thou up and climbing?
Night , night Monkey. See you tommorrow.
Evil Monkey,
Thanks for the clarification but I knew what nascarfanatic was saying. I just hope he understands my point of the correct name and/or pronounciation being secondary if that to the relation of the event.
Glad to see you recognize that you are more evil than evil itself. I presume you have therefore allowed your conscience to indeed condemn you as being a sinner of which I chair the committeee of. I hope you are trusting in our advocate the Christ to argue our case when Daddy Big Evil (not taking anything from you) points out all of our sins to God. I am, so if you are planning on pleading your own case on the merits of your good behaviour and how you followed your given conscience allow me to step aside and see you dance your case. I am going to let my lawyer Christ plead my case relying on his works of faith as a substitution for my lack thereof. I urge you to consider hiring him as chief council.
tallyhoolesinfulsoul>>>>>?//.....
parkerbrothers,
What nascarfanatic is stating is, the "sea" that Moses supposedly parted was not the famous Red Sea, it as another one (the Reed) that was overflowing during a monsoon season during the exact time this miracle transpired. Alot of scholars refute that Moses parted the Red Sea due to the location of it compared to his travels to the promise land.
And as for the comment above, are you saying I am stronger than evil because I am more evil than evil itself? Not sure if I should thank you or not. For, I am Evil Monkey!... Muhahahaa!
Modern archeology would support that nascarfanatic. The footnotes in my Bible state that Yam Suph in Hebrew is the Sea of Reeds. I have no problem with that and actually was taught that fairly early in my biblical teachings.
Parkerbrothers, I agree with you on that. The law can not nullify the promise given to Abraham and was put in place to show us why we needed that ultimate sacrifice. The 10 commandments were given at the time God appointed as needed by the Hebrew children to bring them back into a relationship with God that had been missing while they were in captivity.
nascarfanatic, yes it can be confusing. That's where the power of the Holy Spirit comes in, Jesus promised that he (the Holy Spirit) would be with us forever to be a counselor. I guess in blog terms, our conscience. I think if you look around, you will see Christians that have done that. If not, I would invite them to become involved in missions, both local and abroad. After all what you say sounds familiar to what Jesus said a couple thousand years ago.
Speaking of Moses, have you ever heard of the "Reed Sea?"... That was the REAL sea that Moses supposedly parted.
-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Tue, Mar 11, 2008, at 12:08 AM
Nascarfanatic, Call it anything you want. The awe of the parting overcomes the name for me. I would still be amazed if it was the purple sea myself.
nascarfanatic,
God did want it simple and he didn't make it difficult. Mankind made it difficult.
The simplicity of salvation is the stumbling block of it. We all knowing and suppossedly highly intellectual humans are set on believing it has to be complex. It is a simple plan.
Speaking of Moses, have you ever heard of the "Reed Sea?"... That was the REAL sea that Moses supposedly parted.
It's all so confusing, Sharon, Devan, parkerbrothers... all having different spins on the same scriptures. If God really wanted it to be this simple he wouldn't have made it so difficult. Oh wait, that's what he DID intend to happen, unfortunately men decided what he had instructed to be written wasn't good enough, so they sliced and diced the Bible, until it honestly makes no sense. Most books go in some sort of order, from one chapter to the next there is no symmetry, no order, etc.
I, for one, still and always will believe in God. Like Evil Monkey said, he gave me a conscience to understand right from wrong, and misrepresented scriptures. One of these days, hopefully all of these Christians will go out and do some good works, in all their humbleness, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, take care of the sick... etc, but meanwhile clamoring over who is right and who is wrong on these blogs should suffice.
Sharon22,
Not neccassarily trying to dispute what you are saying but the Promise was given to Abraham before the Law was to Moses. The Law could not nullify the Promise. God knew that the Law which reflected his perfect and sinless nature could not and would not be kept by mankind. He used it to show them their sin and need for appeasement of it which was coming with the promised seed which would be the messiah which is the way to the father as you said.
I would like to suggest that the 10 commandments are not how we get into heaven but were a new way for the Hebrew children to live. In modern terminology he was giving them a new "lifestyle." They had just left Egypt and a culture in which there were multiple gods that were worshiped and in which they were enslaved. He also promised them that if they followed his commandments they would live and prosper and prolong their days in the land they would possess. Many cultures that have not been exposed to the Bible have good people, it's innate within folks to believe in some type of higher power, but many did not and do not have goodness with their conscience. Jesus gave us the answer when he said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me."
So do you think that you have kept it good enough to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?
Well I don't cheat, steal, lie or kill and I believe in God..so yea I'm a thinking I'm doing pretty darn good at keeping my conscience in tact.
Dianatn,
The law was given to be our schoolmaster. To show us our sins and lead us to the need of a sacrifice to cover them which was and is Christ.
The Law was never meant to be kept by us, only to show us we could not keep it. Never have, never will. Waste of precious time to even think about keeping it.
I hope your conscience is not telling you that this is what you have to do in order to enter the Kingdom of God. More importantly I hope you don't think you have ever even come close to keeping it for a second.
In a nutshell don't the 10 commandments tell us what we are suppose to do or not do in order to enter into the Kingdom of heaven?
Basically they say not to kill, cheat, lie, steal and to believe in God.
People who have never even opened a Bible know this, their conscience tells them this, whether someone chooses to listen to their conscience is a different matter.
Evil Monkey,
Yes, all of our consciences tell us what we perceive to be right or wrong. Were you born with a set in stone, never to be changed accessment of what is right and wrong or can your perception be influenced by forces greater than you. Of course it can unless you think that there exist no evil forces greater than you.
So, I guess everyone that is living by their conscience is going to Heaven? Is anyone going to Hell? What exactly does it take to get someone to Heaven? What does one have to do?
parkerbrothers,
Since you asked me a question, sorry for the delay I felt an obligation to answer you. My conscience tells me what is right and wrong, I do not conform to peer pressure nor do I get swayed by "what is cool". I feel I am a good person with good motives and I feel good about talking to others about why I am the way I am.
Your example seems to be of one of, Look everyone else is doing it, so should I. I am not sure if you feel that is the conscience or peer pressure.
I think if you look back I gave my answer to the Leviticus queestion. Leviticus 18 deals with all sorts of sexual sins and chapter 20 deals with the punishment, which is dealt with by death, neither chapter ranks any of the sins mentioned. I don't think it OK to pick and choose which verses to believe. I know the Bible well enough to most likely support whatever "issue" decides to become popular, but that does not make it the correct belief. I am grateful however that Christ died on the cross (the ultimate sacrifice) for all our sins, not just mine or yours, and I do not need to follow the Levitical laws. This is what makes Christianity so totally different from all the other "religions" out there, it about a relationship, and not rules.
Exactly.. So why then do Christian's who write blogs on here perpetuate the situation of denouncing people, based on verses from this book? I find it ironic that it's ok to pick and choose what best supports your belief.
I'm not even sure the Jews living at the time of Jesus ministry actually lived by the Levitical codes. They did live by the "rules" the Pharisees had and they were quite legalistic. I don't think that Leviticus is a moot point, but it did give the rules by which the Hebrew children could receive God's grace. When Jesus died on the cross he provided the ultimate sacrifice, so that I would live under grace and no longer have need to follow the sacrifical codes. It's all part of God's plan for mankind.
Does anyone here live by the Leviticus codes still??? Since that portion of the Bible is obviously a moot point, what else is?
I love your example!
Answer to some questions
Question: "Why are there two different Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2?" Posted by michaelbell
"THE CREATION" is described in Genesis 1:1-31 and 2:1-3
That is the end of the history of "The Creation".
Genesis 2:4-25 is just the broken down "DETAIL OF THE EVENTS" of Genesis chapter 1.
"NO CONTRADICTION"!
Example:
Apple Pie by Mary
I.
Mary made an apple pie to feed her family for Sunday dinner. She cooked Saturday and made chicken, dressing, ham, greens, salad, fried corn, squash, pinto beans and cornbread. On Sunday after church, all of Mary's family came over and ate Sunday dinner the food was delicious, especially the apple pie.
The End.
II.
Every Sunday Mary's family has Sunday dinner together after church. Mary agreed to have it at her house this Sunday. Mary knows that Saturday is going to be a busy day getting things ready for Sunday dinner, so friday evening she goes to the store and buys everything she is going to cook for Sunday dinner. Saturday, Mary gets up and begins cooking all the food, and putting them in the refigerator. She prepares the apple pie, so all it needs is to go into the oven and bake, she places it in the freezer. After church Sunday, Mary goes home and heats up the food that her and her family will be eating. The family starts to arrive. After the food is heated, Mary puts her apple pie in the oven to bake while everyone fixes their plate and begins to eat. Later the apple by is done and everyone gets a slice, and Sunday dinner at Mary's was good.
Notice that section II., is only a broken down detail of section I.
The conscience itself is one of the evil one's favorite playrooms. Unfortunately in this dispensation he has a premier passport.
-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Mar 10, 2008, at 7:29 AM
The conscience is evil's favorite playroom? No, I highly doubt that, unless you have serious mental issues. If you are referring to the capacity to think for one's self, then sure Faith is alot easy to use as a crutch.
-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Mon, Mar 10, 2008, at 8:25 AM
Evil Monkey,
While I am waiting on your answer I thought I would toss you another piece of fruit to chew on.
The whole story of Satan's penetration to the conscience was seen in Genesis.
God: Don't eat the fruit.
Satan: Eat the fruit
Eve: Eat the fruit
Adam: This woman you gave me said eat.
Sounds like they were doing some of this thinking for theirselves you were talking about. I saw a lot of rationalizing and attempts of justification to clear the conscience and permit the fruit to be eaten.
He appears as an angel of light to the deceivable.
jesuslovesevery1 ,
As stated earlier mine is the same as Websters which is a good starting point for the basis of all discussions. My comments referring to the conscience were based on this definition. It is copied and pasted as follows:
Definition: Conscience
Conscience
Noun
1. Motivation deriving logically from ethical or moral principles that govern a person's thoughts and actions.
2. Conformity to one's own sense of right conduct: "a person of unflagging conscience".
3. A feeling of shame when you do something immoral; "he has no conscience about his cruelty".
Source: WordNet 1.7.1 Copyright © 2001 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
Date "conscience" was first used: 12th century. (references)
Etymology: Conscience \Con"science\, noun. [French expression conscience, from the Latin expression conscientia, from consciens, present participle of conscire to know, to be conscious; con- scire to know. See Science.]. (Websters 1913)
Sorry for the confusion and hope that helps.
Using this definition I do still believe that Satan works on the conscience and does quite well with it.
He is the originator of all the justifications and rationalizations we humans use to convince ourselves we are without sin and considered upright citizens and of no need for a sacrafice for our sins that was provided by this Jesus that loves every one.
What's yours? Do you think Satan is capable of trying to influence your conscience?
Sorry, I forgot to ask you, what do you define as your conscience? Do you accept Websters' definition or do you have one of your own that I might like better?
-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Mar 10, 2008, at 9:15 AM
What's yours? Because it sure isn't anywhere in the Bible.
Evil Monkey,
Sorry, I forgot to ask you, what do you define as your conscience? Do you accept Websters' definition or do you have one of your own that I might like better?
Evil Monkey,
Yes, I believe that Satan works on trying to influence everyone's conscience. Of course I probably have a different and wrong definition of what the word conscience means.
The conscience is evil's favorite playroom? No, I highly doubt that, unless you have serious mental issues. If you are referring to the capacity to think for one's self, then sure Faith is alot easy to use as a crutch.
Evil Monkey,
Does my conscience unaided provide me with anything to believe in?
Can I believe in an Abraham Lincoln with nothing but my conscience?
Or at some point am I going to have to trust in a written and/or spoken account to form a belief?
I never met the man (Lincoln) but I am convinced that he lived and I do not feel that my conscience solely was what formed this belief.
The conscience itself is one of the evil one's favorite playrooms. Unfortunately in this dispensation he has a premier passport.
I do not believe in the Trinity either. But never once did I say I didn't believe in God or his son Jesus. The problem is, God never said the Bible was His Word, man did. If anyone believes in a book more than his God-given conscience, than something is amiss.
Sure does. I find it more interesting all the time.
Sharon22,
No, I did not attend an organized gathering today. Just the tri three and me was all I could see.
But that even makes the work of the Holy spirit more interesting and intriguing.
parkerbrothers,
Were you in the same sunday school class I was this morning? I heard a very similar statement to that this morning. Interestin how the Holy Spirit works.
nascarfanatic,
I will try to answer your question before I ask you anymore.
You asked why did God/Jesus never mentioned any nation in the western hemisphere. I know this is going to probably come across the wrong way but I have to presume that he saw no need to just as he did not mention my name or your name. There were a lot of things or topics he did not get recorded as saying but I do not think that this is something to be concerned about. I do think he said a lot about what he wanted to be known.
Yes, he could have visited the entire world if he had of chosen so. However, he did not come on a trip purposed in site seeing. He had a mission to accomplish with set goals. It was his passion.
A lot of people have trouble with accepting that he did not do things like we think he should have. Even his own people who knew the time was right for the arrival of the messiah could not get past his appearance and methods. They being like us and thinking they knew how it would happen expected to see their deliverer arrive in a dazzling chariot with diamond lug nuts and instead got a man riding on a donkey back instead. He did not meet their expectations and was therefore not accepted as what he was.
As far as cannibalism goes I understand that some denominations of Chistianity do literally think they are drinking the blood of Christ when they drink the wine and eating his flesh when they eat the bread in partaking of the symbolic Lord's Supper. However, I have not been exposed to this ritual and do not plan to either. It would also bother me.
You stated that " Christians are no different than anyone else, there god's are no different either, they just have different names." There is one major difference and it alone is what seperates all religions at the core. They serve and worship a dead God and we have a living God.
Now I would like to ask you a question. Actually it is the same question I asked you earlier that you did not answer. I understand you believe there was a man named Jesus. So do I even though it was a tough road getting to that point in my life. Once you have viewed enough information to have reasoned and come to believe that there was indead a man named Jesus you are then left with the next choice that you have to make. He was either what he claimed to be or was the lunitic of all lunitics. There is no in between the two for this man. He can not be just a great prophet. He is either what he said he was and did indeed come out of that tomb or he was the exact definition of a lunitic. After watching the cataclysmic changes that occurred in the apostles life after witnessing the risen Christ I was left with no choice but to accept he did come out of the tomb. Once I came to this point in understanding I had no problem in believing the whole gospel and see it fit together. Once I realized he did come out of that tomb I also realized he could indeed make the chicken and the egg at the same time.
This man called Jesus. What was he to you? Was he the promised Messiah or was he a complete and utter lunitic? Do you trust in a risen Christ?
Seedsower, I was thinking the same thing, but was working on my response. Jesus is the only person that cause so much controversy, must be something to it.
I wasn't sure which entry I wanted to put my response so I picked this one.
I find all these arguments/debates/questions quite fancinating. The bible contains X amount of contradictions or it contains harmful advice or bad stories. The Bible was written by man on a piece of parchment. Why did Jesus stay in one geographic area? On the other had some say it takes only Faith to believe the Bible, christian scientist can prove the historical evidence of the Bible.
I have stated before I love history. I happened to be watching the history international channel yesterday evening and their was a documentary of Alexander the Great on. Fascinating fellow and excellent documentary. I don't think anyone on here would say he didn't exist or do some of the extraordinary things attributed to him. He even claimed to be god at one point in his life. I found one thing intriging about him, the first historian(Arrian) to write anything about him lived about 250 years after him. He would be considered a secondary source, but he used primary sources available at the time. We have no primary sources available now to prove Alexander the Great existed yet we have no difficulty believing his existance.
There was a great and very wise pharisee named Gamaliel around at the infancy of christianity at stated "for if this plan or action if of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is from God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God." Folks on both sides of this arguement state they believe in God or a god, but some have a hard time believing the Bible (just stories written by man), and others say they believe the Bible is the Word of God. I wonder if some are just fighting against God as Gamaliel predicted about 2000 years ago. I have no problem stating that the Bible is the authentic word of God. The gospels were written by contemporaries of Jesus, who actually worked and lived during the time of his ministry on earth. Paul, an early missionary, gave us a foundation on how many problems can be solved within our churches. Yes, folks within differing denominations will pick and choose what they feel is important, but I have enough faith to believe one of these days Christ will return and those difference will not matter anymore. I believe the whole Bible is important. I also believe that the Holy Spirit exist to tap us on the shoulder per say to guide us in our lives. I love a good discussion on the Bible, think I know scripture fairly well, but head knowledge does not always take precidence over heart knowledge. I think the Egytpians, Greeks and Romans would be offended at being called barbarians, which are just some of the great powers that existed at the time the Bible was being written. The Romans after all were ones that created roads (close to 54,000 miles) some of which are still in existance today. The Egyptians created the pyramids, still a marvel of modern science.
I believe that there is one true God, which exist as the trinity, God the Father, God the son and God the Holy Spirit. I also believe that their is only one way to heaven and that is by having a relationship with this one true God.
I believe it is OK to ask the questions being asked, as I think that that is Prevenient Grace at work, so keep right on asking and keep on searching, just maybe we will be in agreement someday on this subject.
Great work Michael. Its funny how the people who dont believe in Jesus Christ are the ones that get their britches in the biggest wad when they see that name.
I believe there was a man named Jesus... Why many Christian's are still cannibals and still eat and drink their savior bothers me. My problem is this, if any other religion or person said or did things like Christian's do in "the name of their God" we cast them out as horrible, lost people, who have no true God. Yet when you sit back and look at things for what they truly are. Christians are no different than anyone else, there god's are no different either, they just have different names.
I don't think their is supposed to be one supreme religion and/or belief. That's why God implanted these little things called brains inside our heads. I wasn't born with a book as any part of my body, therefore I don't need that to complete me. Can you tell me why God/Jesus never mentioned any nation in the western hemisphere? Including the very land you live in now? Did they not know it existed? You would think Jesus could have visited the entire world, instead of staying in one geographic area.
nascarfanatic,
I truly wish I could say you so funny.
But there is nothing funny about your beliefs. I actually find it quite saddening. I wish I knew what to say for you. But I suppose you feel the same way and are saddened by my beliefs.
Perhaps it would be best to just let you continue to put your trust in Thomas Paine and Robert Ingersoll and methods of science and I continue to put mine in a Christ that was crucified as a final sacrafice for my sins which were, are and will be many and was buried and was resurrected to live.
By the way, I do want to confess a sin. I did not have a fried egg sandwich this morning as I said I would earlier. I had two blueberry biscuits instead from Hardee's but I do want to say that the same principle applies to the discussion of which came first, the blueberry or the seed. I personally believe that God was quite capable of creating both at the same time much like the chicken and the egg. We might all be suprised to learn that he created the chicken sitting on her eggs in one call.
Out of curiousity, do you trust in a risen Christ?
parkerbrothers you so funny!
In the first place, the contradictions contained in the Bible prove that numerous assertions in it are false, because two contradictory statements cannot both be true. Examples of the hundreds of biblical contradictions are the conflicting genealogies of Jesus (Mt. 1:1-16 vs. Lk. 3:23-38), the inconsistent stories of Judas' death (Mt. 27:5 vs. Acts 1:18), and the contradictory accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:7 vs. Acts 22:9).
Moreover, the cruelties that the Bible says God ordered, approved, or committed make the book totally unacceptable to persons applying modern standards of justice and humaneness. Examples of biblical atrocities include Moses telling his soldiers to kill women and children (Num. 31:15-18), God sending two bears that killed 42 children because they were making fun of a prophet's bald head (2 Kgs. 2:23-24), and the promise that non-Christians will be sent to the eternal fires of hell (e.g., Mt. 25:41; Rev. 21:8).
Additionally, the Bible's stories of events violating the laws of nature cannot be accepted by scientific persons today. They know it's much more likely the writers of the Bible either lied or were mistaken than that incidents occurred such as sticks turning into snakes (Exod. 7:10-12), a donkey talking (Num. 22:28), a dead man reviving when his corpse came in contact with the bones of a prophet (2 Kgs. 13:21), and a man living for three days and nights in the belly of a fish (Jonah 1:17).
Other reasons the Bible is not the word of God include its false ideas about the structure of the physical world (e.g., 1 Sam. 2:8, where the earth is said to rest on pillars); its prophecies that have proved to be false (e.g., Mk. 13:24-30, where the prediction is made that the world would end within the lifetime of persons living in the first century C.E.); and its historical inaccuracies (e.g., Dan. 5:31, where one "Darius the Mede" is said to have captured Babylon in the sixth century B.C.E., whereas historians know it was Cyrus of Persia who did so).
Furthermore, the Bible is an unreliable authority because of its harmful teachings (e.g., Mk. 16:18, where believers are taught to handle snakes, drink poison, and rely on faith healing instead of medical science); its obscene passages; the fact that parts of it were written many years - and in some cases many centuries - after the events it purports to describe; and the fact that we have no idea who wrote most of it.
Findings of modern biblical scholarship support Thomas Paine's position. The American patriot and proponent of common sense wrote in his book The Age of Reason: "People in general know not what wickedness there is in this pretended word of God. Brought up in habits of superstition, they take it for granted that the Bible is true, and that it is good. . . . Good heavens! It is quite another thing: it is a book of lies, wickedness and blasphemy."
The application of reason, observation, and experience - what the great nineteenth-century agnostic Robert Ingersoll called "the holy trinity of science" - reveals that the Bible was written solely by humans who lived in a barbaric and superstitious age.
Those same methods of science, and not a reliance on religious dogma, are needed to expose falsehood and discover truth in all other fields as well.
ROFL. sad simply sad. God didn't even say it. A man who wrote on a parchment said it. What you believe is a man who is dead. The complete text isn't even there. Yet you believe it anyways.
AMEN!!!!
GOD SAID IT !
I BELIEVE IT !
THAT SETTLES IT FOR ME !
nascarfanatic,
If you still consider that a contradiction then so be it for you. Satan is the most underestimated power you will ever deal with in your life here. Undoubtedly he has studied the scriptures more than all of mankind put together and it is probably his best weapon he can use. The tragedy occurs when he is successful in taking a such a minute thing as the placement of one verse before another and promote it into an attempt to nullify the gospel.
Fortunately God in his own chosen ways and on a timetable he administers provides rebuttals to his advisary the evil one. Since the King James Tranlation there has been over 5000 additional documents discovered. A lot of these discoveries were of documents that were written even closer to the actual time of the Christ. The thing that keeps amazing me is the fact everytime new and earlier writings are found they support the later writings exactly.
If you ever trace the earliest of all scripture writings to the very book you now read today you will see a miracle itself unfolded right before your eyes. There has never or could there ever be another book make it through the passage of time,translations of languages and handling by man that is considered 99.99999% intact today as it was written.
The especially hard part for us today is our English language is one of the most generic and unsophisticated tongues to have existed. So much detail is not obtainable and lacking when scriptures are translated from ancient and highly precise languages such as the Ethiopic down to a more generic and modern English language.
The most sensible thing I know to say about this supposed contradiction is no matter how you read it both Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 says He made man, woman, beast of the field, fowl of the air, fish of the sea, cattle and creeping things and He did. If He made the bird before the cow I am still amazed at the fact He made it. I can still look outside and see both the bird and the cow. If I wrote a book and in the first chapter I told that I looked outside and saw a bird chirping and a cow grazing and then later in chapter 2 I recalled what I saw earlier and told you I saw a cow grazing and a bird chirping would there really be any difference. Both occurred and were witnessed. Only a method of writing and order of recollection would vary.
There really is no contradiction whatsoever in Genesis or any of the Bible for that matter. There is only a force of evil commonly referred to as Satan working the scriptures for you and you can choose to allow this or you can deny him.
One more thing. In the morning I am going to eat me a fried egg sandwich. I am not going to worry which came first, the chicken or the egg. I know there is a chicken and I know it laid the egg and I know it taste good with mayonaise.
-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sat, Mar 8, 2008, at 10:08 PM
Hmm, well assuming that the Bible says God brought forth animals from the ground, and he just made Adam and Eve appear, you can rest assured the chicken came first. ;)
But it is still a contradiction. We can make excuses all we want to about the Bible not making sense, but the underlying point is that it STILL doesn't make sense. You said it, every time a different group of people put their hands on the Bible, something else was left out, miscontstrued, or misplaced. Now, being as I being as I believe in God, can you tell me why it's not ok to question the authenticity of his supposed word?
You pretty much let everyone know, how humans haven't gotten the placement of scriptures right, what makes you think the rest of it is?
yeah, i agree, satan tempting. the worst part is that it puts doubt into some christians mind, because if they cant immediatly disprove the so called contradictions then they must be true. well if anyone reading this is starting to doubt your faith, please dont. i havent read any of these contradictions that cant be succesfully argued. and yes mayo is good on egg sammiches,lol.
One more thing. In the morning I am going to eat me a fried egg sandwich. I am not going to worry which came first, the chicken or the egg. I know there is a chicken and I know it laid the egg and I know it taste good with mayonaise.
THIS?
1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
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.
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.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
or THAT?
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.
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.
2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
CONTRADICTION? NO - SATAN TEMPTING? YES
To start with you have to realize that this suppossed contradiction is irrelevant in the scheme of the gospel. It is almost like finding a split hair on the tail of a 900 lb. cow and trying to prove it is therefore a donkey.
If you were to simply take verse 18 of chapter 2 and put it after verse 20 of chapter 2 it would read for all practical purposes the same as the account of chapter 1.
The Bible you are probably reading today was not arranged into chapters until the early 12th Century by Langston. The Wycliffe Bible of 1382?? was the first official chapterized version seen.
It was not until somewhere in the mid 1400's that the bible was broken down into a form of verses and only the old testaments were done then. The New Testaments that had been cannonized were not put into some form of verse form until around 1560??. It was not until the Geneva Bible was produced that both the New and Old Testaments were printed and available together in verse form.
There is a good chance that somewhere during one of the translations from a 30' long scroll to a printed page through numerous languages of varying degrees of precision that some man like me made what we could consider a mistake and misplaced the flow of the writing of the original hand and mis-versed it.
Irregaurdless of what order anything was created isn't it much simplier and accurate to say that all of it was indeed created and HE did create it? What real difference does it make which was created first?
If you read the missing books of the Bible the 2nd Creation was explained.
That, obviously stems from lovely ole Genesis.
THIS?
1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
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.
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.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
or THAT?
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.
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.
2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
IRONIC? no. Contradiction? Yes.
One down [though not really] 378 more to go :)
It is not that I did not have the answers.
The bible that only by faith[and grace] that you are saved.
Knowing all the facts won't save you.
Most of all the answers to these questions are not in the Bible but based on the Jewish traditions.
They are written down , but for some reason they were not put in the Bible.
But like anything else it might be counted as true to some and "bull' to others .
It is according to where your faith lies.
Welcome back EM, Michael is responding to a list of apparent contradictions that darrick posted (reposted) in another blog last night. This does address one of those. Patience please, I think you've finally got Michael researching.
This is only 1 question, and I don't believe this 1 question was asked by anyone? What about the 163 questions I asked in the past 25 blogs you posted? Can I get a few answers to those?