Creation Contradiction Proves Errancy

[JoeMama]

In the animal Creation passages, (Genesis 1:25-26), God already had made the animals, but later (Genesis 2:18-19) he said that making the animals was something he planned to do.

If these are contradictory, does that mean the Bible is not without error?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #19]

New topic (viewtopic.php?t=41600)

I have viewed the new topic. It requires some adjusting, such as clear quotes from what I actually said, that the context is preserved.
In doing so, the questions for debate you have proposed, will also require adjusting.

Which is to say that the new topic presently is straw about stuff I didn't say/haven't argued.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #29]


You are still fooling yourself that you are doing it right when you are doing it wrong. Where Mind is mysterious, we know nothing and can claim nothing. We must leave it bout of the debate let alone religion.

If on the other hand you try to base an argument on unknowns then you are, if not supernaturalising it (and I know you are as you pretend that the human mind is somehow attached to a cosmic mind - a supernatural claim) doing it wrong.

You may fool yourself but you can't fool me.

[Replying to William in post #19]

New topic (viewtopic.php?t=41600)

I have viewed the new topic. It requires some adjusting, such as clear quotes from what I actually said, that the context is preserved.
In doing so, the questions for debate you have proposed, will also require adjusting.

Which is to say that the new topic presently is straw about stuff I didn't say/haven't argued.

That entire post was if not actual strawman, smokescreen, gaslighting and garbage.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #32]

Please explain to us readers why you think that a cosmic mind is a supernatural mind.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #32]

Please explain to us readers why you think that a cosmic mind is a supernatural mind.

You don't undertsand anything, do you? The supernatural is not a thing, power or entity, but a kind of claim - of something beyond the understanding of the natural world, that is, outside the understanding of what science has shown about the world working or the way it is.

Let me draw a map suitable for the mind of a 6 year old.

Bigfoot/Yeti is beyond what science knows about the way the world and the biosphere is. But if it was validated, it would become not only natural, but science.

If dowsing was proven it would become a problem for science. It would no longer be supernatural.

If an afterlife was validated, it would become natural and the subject of research.

The supernatural is equated by the magocal side with Woo, Magic and miracles. It is simply claims beyond any hypothesis of science, which is why abiogenesis is science and Goddunnit is supernatural.

Has it clicked yet?

Theism actually knows this but does not understand it as it doesn't really understand anything. I have seen a theist apologist throw a spluttering tantrum when I said that if any "Supernatural" claim was validated, it would become a matter for science study, and that natural and science. It wouldn't be Supernatural any more.

"But then how can we validate anything supernatural if every time we do it it becomes natural - even science?"

Because they think supernatural is an alternative dogma to materialism and the things claimed (from UFOs and Ancient technology to Atlantis and Gods (name your own) are hypotheses that IF validated (and how they try to validate them with little or no evidence) would become part of science and cease to be a Win for the claim of theism, miracles and unvalidated faithclaims.

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #19]

New topic (viewtopic.php?t=41600)

I have viewed the new topic. It requires some adjusting, such as clear quotes from what I actually said, that the context is preserved.
In doing so, the questions for debate you have proposed, will also require adjusting.

Which is to say that the new topic presently is straw about stuff I didn't say/haven't argued.

I think I'll leave the topic where it is. Feel free to engage it, or not. This is what debate is all about.

[POI]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #32]

Please explain to us readers why you think that a cosmic mind is a supernatural mind.

You will notice, in my OP, that I placed "supernatural/divine/other" in quotes. I did that for a reason. And you still never answered my unanswered question... Are you a pantheist, deist, agnostic, other?

[The Tanager]

So it comes down to the evidence not whether the event is presented as bald prose or poetry. The evidence is that genesis is wrong. So That.

Wrong about what? Science? That assumes it is trying to be right about science. What evidence shows that? Not “the text says…” because that just begs what the interpretation should be and I’m asking for evidence for your interpretation.

Evasive, if not worse. This is about the othger of creation including earth, sea, biosphere and indeed the celestial bodies visible, and they disagree with science. You can either deny science or accept science and accept that Genesis is wrong. Appealing to poetry means So Nothing. It is Wrong.

That’s a claimed interpretation. Simply dismissing my reasoning as evasive isn’t adequate. Give evidence that “this is about…” X, Y, and Z, don’t beg the answer that it is.

So ok. You can try to pick the fact out of the poetry, but the fact is it says the dawn is in the east. It it had said “But, soft! What light through yonder window breaks? / It is the west, and Juliet is the sun.” we would, knowing dact throw up our hands and say "Pure poetry, and the fact is wrong".

Shakespeare isn’t saying Juliet is coming from the east, but is the light to take away the darkness he is feeling. Does that mean Shakespeare is saying the sun physically takes away such feelings? Is Shakespeare wrong about that fact? Or did Shakespeare not address that question?

If you try to excuse Genesis as poetry, (a miserable excuse of an apologetic - atheists at least respect it enough to take what it says as what it means) then it would be poetry based in wrong fact - unless you dismiss science.

This is simply another way to try to cover up your begging of the question that Genesis’ wording about the days of creation is not poetry…with rhetoric (I’m making a miserable excuse and not respecting the text enough) not rational support.

But I can equally well explain that (the multiple author theory supports that) that two different creations were put together rather than chuck out some Scripture.

But if that happened, the one(s) who put it together were aware of the discrepancy and didn’t care. If they were trying to answer the scientific question, they would have had to change or editorialize on that and they didn’t. Their text is what we are talking about, not if someone before them meant it differently.

I'd suggest you leave alone Jewish mindset excuses about the sabbath as it only makes one think it was all invented later on when such things mattered to Jews. Like writing their history in Babylon and using Babylonian records to do it.

Suggestion noted, but I have faith in the critical thinking skills of people who should notice that that isn’t the only possible explanation. We use our understanding to reframe knowledge all the time. When machines came along, we started describing science in the language of machines. We’ve used the language of computers. That doesn’t mean those scientific claims are invented.

[otseng]

You don't undertsand anything, do you?

Let me draw a map suitable for the mind of a 6 year old.

Moderator Warning



Please cease from the personal and uncivil comments.

Please review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[TRANSPONDER]

Ooop sorry. It was a little exasperation at having to explain basics.

[TRANSPONDER]

So it comes down to the evidence not whether the event is presented as bald prose or poetry. The evidence is that genesis is wrong. So That.

Wrong about what? Science? That assumes it is trying to be right about science. What evidence shows that? Not “the text says…” because that just begs what the interpretation should be and I’m asking for evidence for your interpretation.

It doesn't matter. If it is poetic and just no knowledge about the actual order of creatiobn, it can be taken as literature and poetry and no more and no 'Faith'can be put in it as a book about what actually happened. If however one takes it as meaning what it says, it is wrong, if one credits science.

Evasive, if not worse. This is about the othger of creation including earth, sea, biosphere and indeed the celestial bodies visible, and they disagree with science. You can either deny science or accept science and accept that Genesis is wrong. Appealing to poetry means So Nothing. It is Wrong.

That’s a claimed interpretation. Simply dismissing my reasoning as evasive isn’t adequate. Give evidence that “this is about…” X, Y, and Z, don’t beg the answer that it is.

It is either intended to be factual (in which case it is wrong) or it it pertic, in which case it doesn't matter. Either way it is no cause to believe the Bible as fact

So ok. You can try to pick the fact out of the poetry, but the fact is it says the dawn is in the east. It it had said “But, soft! What light through yonder window breaks? / It is the west, and Juliet is the sun.” we would, knowing dact throw up our hands and say "Pure poetry, and the fact is wrong".

Shakespeare isn’t saying Juliet is coming from the east, but is the light to take away the darkness he is feeling. Does that mean Shakespeare is saying the sun physically takes away such feelings? Is Shakespeare wrong about that fact? Or did Shakespeare not address that question?

Shakespeare is doing more than that, he is taking the onset of morning for some poetic musing about hir girl. Either way, he is right, the sun is rising in the east. Whether the Bible is just using the order of creation as poesy or supposed fact it is wrong either way.

If you try to excuse Genesis as poetry, (a miserable excuse of an apologetic - atheists at least respect it enough to take what it says as what it means) then it would be poetry based in wrong fact - unless you dismiss science.

This is simply another way to try to cover up your begging of the question that Genesis’ wording about the days of creation is not poetry…with rhetoric (I’m making a miserable excuse and not respecting the text enough) not rational support.

Yet again, it is either poetry, or it is not. Either way it is wrong about the order of creation and deserved no credit as being factual.

But I can equally well explain that (the multiple author theory supports that) that two different creations were put together rather than chuck out some Scripture.

But if that happened, the one(s) who put it together were aware of the discrepancy and didn’t care. If they were trying to answer the scientific question, they would have had to change or editorialize on that and they didn’t. Their text is what we are talking about, not if someone before them meant it differently.

This is speculative and good old'making stuff up to excuse errors'. They could have corrected it but didn't and going by what was the state of knowledge up to a lot later there is no evidence that anyone know differently from what is in genesis on the order of creation, and they were wrong.

I'd suggest you leave alone Jewish mindset excuses about the sabbath as it only makes one think it was all invented later on when such things mattered to Jews. Like writing their history in Babylon and using Babylonian records to do it.

Suggestion noted, but I have faith in the critical thinking skills of people who should notice that that isn’t the only possible explanation. We use our understanding to reframe knowledge all the time. When machines came along, we started describing science in the language of machines. We’ve used the language of computers. That doesn’t mean those scientific claims are invented.

I have no faith in the critical thinking skills of anyone who tries to validate what is wrong in the Bible by using poetry as an excuse. Poetry or supposed fact it is wrong either way. As I said there is no evidence that anyone up until a few hundred years ago knew the correct order of creation and the Bible seems absolutely in like with the understandable but wrong guesses of the best thinkers up to then. Poetry or the science of the time, it is wrong, and reflects the ideas of men, not the knowledge of a God who supposedly created it all.