ECT Have You Heard? There is Scripture That Proves Two Different Creations!

[Rosenritter]

You mean this one?

Genesis was written by one person, not multiple people.

I have seen a reasonable argument that God may have used the early patriarchs themselves to write the first sections of Genesis: Adam being the writer until his death, then his son, and so on and so forth. In this sense Moses would have written these parts again, either from manuscripts available to him or afresh by divine inspiration. There is a recorded precedent where the only extant words of God were destroyed and He had them written afresh (Jeremiah 36).

 

[Rosenritter]

You complained saying, "I wish you would state your assumptions".

So I stated an easily understood axiom. Why don't you do a little reading on this topic?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative

That was me who said that. And I am not going to survey Google to find a web page that sounds like you and then argue against that.

 

[Rosenritter]

If so, then which day in the first creation account matches the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens in Genesis 2:4-5?

One. and Two. and Three. and Four. and Five. and Six. "Day of Creation" is the "Age of Creation" and could also be called "days of Creation" without loss of meaning.

 

[JudgeRightly]

One. and Two. and Three. and Four. and Five. and Six. "Day of Creation" is the "Age of Creation" and could also be called "days of Creation" without loss of meaning.

This is what I was getting at above.

 

[Rosenritter]

Sorry. That's obviously not an example. "The day" is singular. "In the days of our forefathers" (Matthew 23:30) is indisputably plural.

"Back in my day we didn't allow young whipper-snappers to act so uppity and full of themselves!"

In the above example, is it referring to a mere (strict) 24 hour period, or likely a span including multiple 24-hour periods? How likely is it that the speaker refers to a time period with only one rising and setting of the sun?

 

[Stripe]

Genesis was written by one person, not multiple people.

I like the tablet theory of Genesis' authorship, which makes Moses a collater of previous material for Genesis.

 

[Bladerunner]

I have not read all 6 pages and if I duplicate someone else's answer, my apology.

Gen 1 is the PROLOGUE to the Creation
While GEN 2,3-> are the details of the Book.

Blade

 

[Shubee]

One. and Two. and Three. and Four. and Five. and Six. "Day of Creation" is the "Age of Creation" and could also be called "days of Creation" without loss of meaning.

You're just forcing the text into your preconceived opinions by using fantastically unnatural gymnastics. If you can't admit that then you should spend some time looking for off-the-wall precedents.

 

[Stripe]

Many people have been confused at what they’ve been told were two different creation accounts in these first two chapters. But we can see that this isn’t correct. Chapter 1 is the only “creation account,” [as] it gives detailed listing and timing of the creative acts of God. Chapter 2 does not attempt to say: “This happened and then that happened.” It’s just Adam’s own account of his own beginnings, written from his own viewpoint. The confusion comes about because of peculiarities in words. It only shows up in some languages. The English language has definite past, present, and future tenses for its verbs, but Hebrew does not. In Hebrew, the relative timing must be taken from the context, not the actual words themselves. In Tablet #1 (Gen.1:1-2:4a), the timing is carefully told — the creation of land animals and humans took place on the sixth day, and in the order stated. This tablet is written from the Creator’s viewpoint and outlines the exact things He did. But in Tablet #2 (Gen.2:4b-5:1a), there are no timing statements. This tablet was written from a different viewpoint and describes events as he saw them. He first briefly described the area around him (in Gen.2:4b-15), and the instructions and promise of a help-mate, that God had given him. He then told of the huge task that he had been given by God (naming the animals) and how he did that. These verses show that Adam must have been a very intelligent person and a knowledgeable taxonomist, not the ignorant “cave-man” that some people imagine.

 

[Stripe]

Gen 1 is the PROLOGUE to the Creation
While GEN 2,3-> are the details of the Book.

Except for the fact that Gen 1 has all the details and Gen 2 expands on only a few aspects, mostly those that Adam was party to.

 

[Shubee]

That's a good example for showing where God presents alternatives.

So if God is willing to limit our perception of the future, then what is wrong with God also limiting our understanding of history?

 

[Bladerunner]

Except for the fact that Gen 1 has all the details and Gen 2 expands on only a few aspects, mostly those that Adam was party to.

Yes, just think of a Novel. The prologue will take you deep into the story and GEN 1 does and the rest of the book tells how we got there. Gen 1 is the actual creation while the other (2-3) are the details.

Blade

 

[Stripe]

Yes, just think of a Novel. The prologue will take you deep into the story and GEN 1 does and the rest of the book tells how we got there. Gen 1 is the actual creation while the other (2-3) are the details. Blade

Except that Gen. 1 has all the details, while Gen. 2 only focuses on a few aspects, mostly those involving Adam.

 

[Shubee]

Many people have been confused at what they’ve been told were two different creation accounts in these first two chapters. But we can see that this isn’t correct. Chapter 1 is the only “creation account,”

Your copy and paste is terribly flawed. Tragically, the author doesn't even understand the meaning of a creation account. Granted, the second creation account is poorly focused but that's precisely what is to be expected when an author consults conflicted sources and then tries to write out the core message of a people's oral traditions.

 

[Stripe]

Your copy and paste is terribly flawed. Tragically, the author doesn't even understand the meaning of a creation account. Granted, the second creation account is poorly focused but that's precisely what is to be expected when an author consults conflicted sources and then tries to write out the core message of a people's oral traditions.

:yawn:

 

[Rosenritter]

I like the tablet theory of Genesis' authorship, which makes Moses a collater of previous material for Genesis.

That's what I was thinking of.

[FONT=&quot]However, Wiseman saw that the colophons in the ancient tablets always were at the end, not the beginning. He applied this idea to the toledoth phrases in Genesis, and found that in every case it suddenly made good sense. The text just before the phrase “These are the generations of ... ” contained information about events that the man named in that phrase would have known about. That person would have been the logical one to write that part. In other words, each toledoth phrase contains the name of the man who probably wrote the text preceding that phrase. Or, in still other words, the book of Genesis consists of a set of tablets, each of which was written by an actual eye-witness to the events described therein. These tablets were finally compiled by Moses.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Enough archaeological confirmation has been found so that many historians now consider the Old Testament, at least that part after about the eleventh chapter of Genesis, to be historically correct. It seems strange that seminary professors often still teach the old “doubtful criticism” theories, even though the basis on which they were started has now been thoroughly discredited.

[/FONT]

 

[Rosenritter]

You're just forcing the text into your preconceived opinions by using fantastically unnatural gymnastics. If you can't admit that then you should spend some time looking for off-the-wall precedents.

Whatever. Do you have a style of response with actual content?

 

[Rosenritter]

So if God is willing to limit our perception of the future, then what is wrong with God also limiting our understanding of history?

We aren't told all of history (and as such our perception is already limited) but where God has revealed history we have no reason to doubt it.

 

[Shubee]

We aren't told all of history (and as such our perception is already limited) but where God has revealed history we have no reason to doubt it.

God has presented two creation accounts. Consequently, many doubt and slaphappily deny what a creation account is.

 

[Stripe]

God has presented two creation accounts. Consequently, many doubt and slaphappily deny what a creation account is.

There are four accounts of the resurrection.