01 Jul 07
Originally posted by josephwVistesd's post explains the contradiction better than I did.
Genesis 2:18-19 tells us that God created man and later creates the creatures of the earth.
Young fella, you have misread the verse. It does not say, in this verse, that God created the animals after he had created man. It just doesn't say that at all. It only states that God had made the animals and brought them to Adam to be given names. The order of creation is given in chapter 1.[/b]
01 Jul 07
Originally posted by vistesdCould you elaborate on this further?
The point isn’t whether there are contradictions. The point is whether or not they matter in the context of the story being told—and its point.
I am trying to make the following points, which hopefully follow each other logically.
1) The Bible is not inerrant.
2) Every word of the Bible cannot be considered the "direct words of God" if the Bible has flaws and/or contradictions.
3) The Bible should be subjected to interpretations if not all of it comes as the "direct words of God."
Originally posted by wittywonkaAn aboriginal storyteller of the ancient oral tradition once began a tale with these words: “I can’t say that things happened just this way. But I can tell you that this story is true.”
Could you elaborate on this further?
I am trying to make the following points, which hopefully follow each other logically.
1) The Bible is [b]not inerrant.
2) Every word of the Bible cannot be considered the "direct words of God" if the Bible has flaws and/or contradictions.
3) The Bible should be subjected to interpretations if not all of it comes as the "direct words of God."[/b]
If you cannot yet grasp that, chew on it. Mull it over for as long as you need, until you don’t need me (or someone else) to tell you if your understanding is correct.
Very small hints: Think of how you would tell your life story thus far; think of how your parents might tell it, or your siblings, or your friends. Would they tell it differently from you? [“You know, I don’t re-member it that way.” (Once again, pay attention to that hyphen.) How many times have I heard that in my life?]
How might any of these stories differ from a newspaper reporter’s (“just the facts, ma’am” ) bio for your obituary? Which versions are likely to be the most meaningful? To whom?
Suppose you have listened to the storyteller’s tale before—and this time he tells it differently? Does that make one version more or less “true” than the other? Why, on what basis? Do you think that everyone who hears the tale will be able to retell it the same way? Maybe they will personalize it by changing names and places, and altering events—is there a one “true” version? What if the version that gives you the most insight into your own life turns out to be the one least factually correct? Does that invalidate those insights—or the way in which it effected them?
When you can understand the aboriginal storyteller’s point, you will understand a great deal about how the oral stories became written stories, and how—over the centuries—the written stories can lose the fluidity of the original.
And you may understand why I am now giving you questions, instead of “answers.”
________________________________________
BTW, not that it matters, but I agree with all of your points.
01 Jul 07
Originally posted by josephwBut it does say that. The verb form in 28:1 reads:
If you are suggesting, in Mathews acount, that the women were already at the tomb, and then the stone was moved, you are wrong.
It doesn't say that.
elthen ... theoresai
came ... to look at
That is, (they) came ... to look at (the grave). (I didn't include the nouns since they aren't relevant). Note the simple past indicating a completed action.
This is followed by idou -- behold or suddenly. Indicating a new action since the other one
was completed. The verb forms that follow reads:
katabas ... proseltheon apekulisen
(the angel) having come down from heaven (and) having approached rolled away the stone.
Note the present perfect in 'having come down' and 'having approached' but the simple past for
'rolled away.' That is, the sentence reads:
Suddenly the angel rolled away the stone, having come down from heaven and having approached it.
The grammar is unequivocal. It is direction contradiction with the equally clear grammar in St Luke's
Gospel.
Nemesio
01 Jul 07
Originally posted by vistesd"It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner." 19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
Genesis 2:18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; [b]I will make him a helper as his partner." 19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that w ...[text shortened]... int is whether or not they matter in the context of the story being told—and its point.[/b]
The Lord formed them out them out of the ground, it does not state
He did it right then and there, it simply says that was how He formed
them, and they were brought to Adam for naming. The order of
creation was done in the first chapter, at best you are getting how
many things are to connect or stand in order of importance within
creation, as well as nothing suitable was found for Adam among all
that came before Adam, God saved one of the best for last when He
gave us women in Eve.
Kelly
01 Jul 07
Originally posted by KellyJayHow could Adam have been alone as the passage indicates if the animals were formed before
The Lord formed them out them out of the ground, it does not state
He did it right then and there, it simply says that was how He formed
them, and they were brought to Adam for naming. The order of
creation was done in the first chapter, at best you are getting how
many things are to connect or stand in order of importance within
creation, as well as n ...[text shortened]...
that came before Adam, God saved one of the best for last when He
gave us women in Eve.
Kelly
him?
Nemesio
01 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodeyThe problem with writing is that it's already been interpreted. Ever hear of the game "telephone"?
I think you will find that ALL data has an element of interpretation. For example, if you look up at the sky you will notice the planets moving unlike the stars that are in a fixed position. The interpretation is that the planets move but the stars do not. However, ONLY after further investigation do we find that this is not the case. However, the origina ...[text shortened]... suming the stars are in a fixed position, so to speak. Perhaps further investigation is needed?
The stars are a primary source. The Bible is not.
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioDepending on the sentence structure you could replace the word 'so'
How do you explain the use of the word 'So?'
Nemesio
with the word 'now' and still get the same meaning, since it is pointing
to what was going on, not necessarily saying "At this point this happened."
Kelly
02 Jul 07
3 edits
Originally posted by vistesdYou are both a gentleman and a scholar. This is perhaps the best example yet of an apparent contradiction. However, I would have to go with Joseph on this one. I would say that it would have been virtually impossible for Jeremiah to have not known about the offerings done by Israel in the wilderness. After all, being a Jew I am almost certain Jeremiah gave sacrifices to God for his sins. Do you think he did so with the full knowledge that God did not order them or desire them? Again, I think it unlikely.
I agree completely as to Jeremiah's point—and I deliberately omitted 7:23, which states that point clearly (as do the passages you cited).
But Jeremiah did not say something like, “It is not the offerings and sacrifices that are important, but to obey my voice and walk in the way I command you.” He said that God never commanded Israel’s anc ...[text shortened]... ncing the offerings and sacrifices, not merely saying they are not the point.
I go with (2).
The point to the passage is that God wanted their hearts in regards them wanting to do his will and not just a ritualistic killing of animals. I would very much like to see the original language untranslated. Are you able to give us that?
I would also compare this verse to Hosea 6:6 which says, "Since what I want is love, not sacrifice; knowledge of God, not holocausts." Does Hosea imply here that God did not command or desire them to give sacrifices or holocausts to him? I think not. I think what God wants is for our hearts to be the motivating factor in regards to why we sacrifice things to him. I think this can be seen as far back as Cain and Abel. Both gave God "sacrifices". However, one gave from their heart by giving the best that he had, but the other not so much. Cain then became jealous of God preferring Abels sacrifice and.....well you know the rest of the story.
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioSo if you were stuck on a island with only a bunch of animals you would not consider yourself to be alone? Tell that to Tom Hanks in the movie Cast Away!!
How could Adam have been alone as the passage indicates if the animals were formed before
him?
Nemesio
02 Jul 07
Are you guys reading the same book as me (KellyJay and Whodey)?
God creates man (2:7).
God notes that man is alone (2:18).
Then it says: 'So the Lord God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various birds...'
(2:19).
Explain the 'so' (or 'now' or 'and then this happened'😉. Explain why the author would follow the noting
of 'aloneness' with the formation and then noting that none served as a 'suitable partner.'
If Adam was alone (but surrounded with animals), why would the next sentence read 'so God formed...'
and discover that 'none proved to be a suitable partner?'
Nemesio
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by KellyJayThat's right. It could be 'now.' But the verb form isn't 'Now God had formed.' It's 'Now God formed.'
Depending on the sentence structure you could replace the word 'so'
with the word 'now' and still get the same meaning, since it is pointing
to what was going on, not necessarily saying "At this point this happened."
Kelly
It's simple past. If the author of this particular story was so careless in his grammar, how can you
possibly trust historicity of the content!
Nemesio