Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The following is the order of creation according to Genesis 1, the Priestly tradition:Day 1: sky; earth; light
Day 2: water
Day 3: plant life
Day 4: sun; moon; stars
Day 5: animal life
Day 6: Adam and Eve
Day 7: nothing
The following is the order of creation according to Genesis 2, the Yahwist tradition:
[list][*]earth; heavens
[*]Adam
[*]plant life
[*]animal life
[*]Eve[/list]
In Genesis 1, creation is orderly; God creates step-by-step. In Genesis 2, however, creation is not orderly; God modifies things as He goes, e.g. man is not satisfied with animals so God creates woman.
Furthermore, in Genesis 1, after each step of creation God is satisfied and says, "It is good." In Genesis 2, however, God goes back and makes changes to the things He created previously.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The information you provided does not explain the inconsistency between the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 version of the creation of Adam and Eve. According to Genesis 1, Adam and Eve are created together on the last day of creation. According to Genesis 2, Adam is created on the first day of creation and Eve on the last. Not to mention that in Genesis 1, Adam and Eve are created separately and in Genesis 2, Eve is made from the rib of Adam.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In Genesis 1:1-31, the creation takes six days, but in Genesis 2:4, the creation takes one day.Which is correct?
In Genesis 1:11-27, God creates the plants before He creates man and woman, but in Genesis 2:5-25, God creates man first, the plants next, and then woman.
Which is correct?
In Genesis 1:14-19, God creates the stars before He creates the earth, but in Job 38:4-7, God creates the stars after He creates the earth.
Which is correct?
In Genesis 1:20-22, God creates birds from the water, but in Genesis 2:19, God creates birds from the ground.
Which is correct?
In Genesis 1:25-27, God creates the animals before He creates man and woman, but in Genesis 2:7-25, God creates man first, the animals next, and then woman.
Which is correct?
In Genesis 1:27, God creates man and woman at the same time, but in Genesis 2:7-25, God creates man first, then woman.
Which is correct?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The Bible makes many claims, a number of which are untrue:God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?
Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19).
God makes two lights: "the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night." But the moon is not a light, but only reflects light from the sun. And why, if God made the moon to "rule the night," does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky (Genesis 1:16)?
All animals were originally herbivores. Tapeworms, vampire bats, mosquitoes, and barracudas—all were strict vegetarians, as they were created by God (Genesis 1:30).
After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while. However, we still don't have names for all of them. Ten thousand new species of insects are discovered and named each year (Genesis 2:18-22).
God curses the serpent. From now on the serpent will crawl on his belly and eat dust. One wonders how he got around before—by hopping on his tail, perhaps? But snakes don't eat dust, do they (Genesis 3:14)?
Because Adam listened to Eve, God cursed the ground and causes thorns and thistles to grow. Before this, according to the Genesis story, plants had no natural defenses. The rose had no thorn, cacti were spineless, holly leaves were smooth, and the nettle had no sting. Foxgloves, oleander, and milkweeds were all perfectly safe to eat (Genesis 3:17).
"There were giants in the earth in those days." Well, I suppose it's good to know that. But why is there no archaeological evidence for the existence of these giants (Genesis 6:4)?
I could go on and on and on and on . . .
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The Bible makes many claims, a number of which are untrue:God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?
* in Genesis 1:3-5, God created light, but the light was not the sun... it shows that the six days of creation is not literal 24-hour day... God is beyond space and time...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19).
* the trees were not planted, it does not need "photosynthetic processes"... they were created and commanded to grow and bear fruits...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
God makes two lights: "the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night." But the moon is not a light, but only reflects light from the sun. And why, if God made the moon to "rule the night," does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky (Genesis 1:16)?
* the moon, inspite of whatever you said, is still the lesser light that rules the night...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while. However, we still don't have names for all of them. Ten thousand new species of insects are discovered and named each year (Genesis 2:18-22).
* Genesis would be uber-thick if it listed millions of species rather than the story itself...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
God curses the serpent. From now on the serpent will crawl on his belly and eat dust. One wonders how he got around before—by hopping on his tail, perhaps? But snakes don't eat dust, do they (Genesis 3:14)?
* it was Satan who took the form of a serpent...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Because Adam listened to Eve, God cursed the ground and causes thorns and thistles to grow. Before this, according to the Genesis story, plants had no natural defenses. The rose had no thorn, cacti were spineless, holly leaves were smooth, and the nettle had no sting. Foxgloves, oleander, and milkweeds were all perfectly safe to eat (Genesis 3:17).
* it was not implied that thorns and thistles were created only in that particular moment...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
"There were giants in the earth in those days." Well, I suppose it's good to know that. But why is there no archaeological evidence for the existence of these giants (Genesis 6:4)?I could go on and on and on and on . . .
* so if there's no "archaeological evidence", does it automatically means it did not exist?
Originally posted by peejayd
* in Genesis 1:3-5, God created light, but the light was not the sun...
Which begs the question, "How could there be 'the evening and the morning' on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?"
Originally posted by peejayd
it shows that the six days of creation is not literal 24-hour day... God is beyond space and time...
Originally posted by Adam_PoEThere is no reason to believe that the term "day" in the creation account refers to any period of time other than 24 hours. If the Bible is written by God for man, then it would reference the period of time that man recognizes as day.
Originally posted by peejayd
* the trees were not planted, it does not need "photosynthetic processes"... they were created and commanded to grow and bear fruits...
Which begs the question, "How could the plants 'grow and bear fruit' if there was no sun to drive their photosynthetic processes?"
Originally posted by peejayd
* the moon, inspite of whatever you said, is still the lesser light that rules the night...
The moon is not a light at all.
Originally posted by peejayd
* Genesis would be uber-thick if it listed millions of species rather than the story itself...
Adam could not have named all of the animals, because there are still not names for all of them.
Originally posted by peejayd
* it was Satan who took the form of a serpent...
This does not affect the statement in question.
Originally posted by peejayd
* it was not implied that thorns and thistles were created only in that particular moment...
God commanded thorns and thistles to grow to punish Adam for listening to Eve.
Originally posted by peejayd
* so if there's no "archaeological evidence", does it automatically means it did not exist?
Does it follow from the supposed lack of archaeological evidence for "transitional species" that Evolution is not valid?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Which begs the question, "How could there be 'the evening and the morning' on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?"
Originally posted by Robtard
I'd like to know what was/is the source of this "light", if not a solar body?
* before creation, there was nothing... then God first created light, His light...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There is no reason to believe that the term "day" in the creation account refers to any period of time other than 24 hours. If the Bible is written by God for man, then it would reference the period of time that man recognizes as day.
* the mere fact that it was reiterated that the sun, moon & stars were not created in the first day - it only shows the six days of creation & the seventh day of rest are not literal 24-hour day...
* true, the Bible was written for man, written by men inspired by God... the Bible was written to establish understanding between God and man...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Which begs the question, "How could the plants 'grow and bear fruit' if there was no sun to drive their photosynthetic processes?"
* the trees were not planted, it does not need "photosynthetic processes"... they were created and commanded to grow and bear fruits...
* there's no need, the trees were not planted, but was created and commanded to grow...
* Adam and Eve did not start out as fetuses, don't they?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The moon is not a light at all.
* technically, yes... but whether you like it or not, the moon serves as a light in the evening...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Adam could not have named all of the animals, because there are still not names for all of them.
* technically, yes... the only question that hangs is, are those unnamed species was already named by Adam or not? we all don't know, i might not consider this as an error...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This does not affect the statement in question.
* it does because, since satan used the appearance of a serpent/snake, God derived satan's curse from a serpent/snake... technically, it's a snake; but spiritually, it's not, it's satan...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
God commanded thorns and thistles to grow to punish Adam for listening to Eve.
* i know... but it does not even imply that the thorns were only created in that circumstance...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Does it follow from the supposed lack of archaeological evidence for "transitional species" that Evolution is not valid?
* there might be some creatures which really evolved but some only adapted... well, you tell me, since it was you who are saying that giants lack archaelogical evidences...
Originally posted by lord xyz
Or how a formless empty Earth could have water.Further more, when was Jupiter created?
* i believe the planets in the solar system and even the whole galaxy was created chronologically starting from a celestial body that was capable of universal equilibrium... Earth should be in accordance with the other planets to create balance, and what-nots... 🙂
Form presumably refers to terrain, yet to be terraformed by his noodly appendage. Or rather more accurately aquaformed. And empty presumably refers to a lack of furries and shinies. Although those probably aren't the only ways one could interpret the statement. Even if one is taking it literally; one doesn't have to be literarily obtuse.
Relatively formless to begin with?
-Check.
Relatively empty to begin with?
-Check.
But it's still a sphere at the start.
-No shit Sherlock, have a cookie.
Originally posted by Kazenji
I found one where God goes to cain and abel "go forth and multiply" how do they multiply when eve was the only femaleOr does that mean were all inbred ?
We are all inbreed according to the Bible. Adam and Eve had a multitude of sons and daughters (since they lived to be 900 or so), who then ****ed each other and made more sons and daughters so on and so forth.
Eventually we get to Noah (inbreed descendant of Adam) and the Great Flood, God drowns everything except Noah, his immediate family (8 people in all I believe) and a mixture of some (only certain animals made God's grade) animals. After the flood, Noah and his immediate family begin incest-****ing to repopulate the Earth. Kinky.
Edit:Have to ask, if they were Jews from the Middle East, how did the world end up with the Asians, Negroes, Indians (feather, not dot) etc?
Originally posted by Robtard
We are all inbreed according to the Bible. Adam and Eve had a multitude of sons and daughters (since they lived to be 900 or so), who then ****ed each other and made more sons and daughters so on and so forth.
A-actually...Adam and Eve were the first humans made....not the only ones.
In reality though we are all inbred....cause we all stem from but one mother.
Or if you go further, we all stem from just one organism.
In fact, we are just part of one big chemical reaction. Have a good day 😊
Originally posted by Bardock42
A-actually...Adam and Eve were the first humans made....not the only ones.In reality though we are all inbred....cause we all stem from but one mother.
Or if you go further, we all stem from just one organism.
In fact, we are just part of one big chemical reaction. Have a good day 😊
They were the only two people in the Garden when Eve ****ed up and God punished her with the pain of child-labor for her actions (along with mortality) while throwing them out into the world to fend for themselves. Unless you have something that says otherwise?
Well yes, but we also have breeding/mixture with other primates outside that first "Eve", we just share that common mother-bloodline if you go back far enough.
Originally posted by Robtard
They were the only two people in the Garden when Eve ****ed up and God punished her with the pain of child-labor for her actions (along with mortality) while throwing them out into the world to fend for themselves. Unless you have something that says otherwise?Well yes, but we also have breeding/mixture with other primates outside that first "Eve", we just share that common mother-bloodline if you go back far enough.
Well, I just have that it doesn't say that Adam and Eve were the only people. If you have any prove that they were the only people lets have it.
True, true. She got around. 😐
Also, Jesus is a Necromancer
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I just have that it doesn't say that Adam and Eve were the only people. If you have any prove that they were the only people lets have it.True, true. She got around. 😐
Also, Jesus is a Necromancer
God isn't mentioned creating other people after he makes Adam from dirt and Eve from rib, so it leads me to believe that they were it. I'm also fairly certain there are passages that sustain Adam & Eve being the only humans at the time of expulsion, I can't recall them off the top of my head though. (I'll check later)
Well, there were several other species that developed along with the line that eventually lead to modern man, there's also some proof of species mixing along the way, like modern man and Neanderthals did sex it up at times. Wouldn't you have gotten around?
If that were true, that would raise his stock for me, Necromancers are sweet.
Adam is lonely as he is naming animals and tending the ground, so God gives him a single "helper" in Eve. Later, God casts out Man from Eden, and Adam and Eve are banished.
When I read Genesis 1 I infer that God had an extremely loose plan, where he takes a look at the things that he creates, Light, Water, Sky, and then after checking it out, he determines that it is "good". I just find it interesting how capricious God comes off to be.
What I find most interesting in Genesis 2, is after Adam and Eve eat the fruit then go to cover themselves up. God comes, discovers they ate the fruit and says: "'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil'" (3:22).
Originally posted by Mindship
There's only one error in Genesis: taking it literally.
Bam!
Originally posted by Bardock42
A-actually...Adam and Eve were the first humans made....not the only ones.In reality though we are all inbred....cause we all stem from but one mother.
Or if you go further, we all stem from just one organism.
Praise LUCA?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, Jesus is a Necromancer
Well he claimed to be a prophet but I don't believe he ever summoned the dead in order to learn about the future.
Originally posted by Aequo Animo
What I find most interesting in Genesis 2, is after Adam and Eve eat the fruit then go to cover themselves up. God comes, discovers they ate the fruit and says: "'Behold, the man is become as one of [B]us, to know good and evil'" (3:22). [/B]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we
There are actually any number of different things that God could be saying in that instance.
Originally posted by Bardock42You don't know we came from one organism. What's not to say that some of us came from an organism created in Asia, and others came from an organism created in America.
A-actually...Adam and Eve were the first humans made....not the only ones.In reality though we are all inbred....cause we all stem from but one mother.
Or if you go further, we all stem from just one organism.
In fact, we are just part of one big chemical reaction. Have a good day 😊
Speaking of inbreeding, since all humans are God's children, that means Mary is also God's child. Furthermore, Jesus proclaimed he is his own father. Making Mary the mother, sister and daughter of God. Now that's some ****ed up shit right there.
Originally posted by lord xyz
You don't know we came from one organism. What's not to say that some of us came from an organism created in Asia, and others came from an organism created in America.
Because the likelyhood of two species of humans evolving to be exactly the same but on separate lines is highly unlikely.
But like I said, there's evidence that some of our greatX100 grandfathers did it with a Neanderthal, maybe it's the reason why you're always so irrational and angry, you're part brute.
Originally posted by RobtardBy us I didn't mean humans.
Because the likelyhood of two species of humans evolving to be exactly the same but on separate lines is highly unlikely.But like I said, there's evidence that some of our greatX100 grandfathers did it with a Neanderthal, maybe it's the reason why you're always so irrational and angry, you're part brute.