Number of Creation Accounts

[Difflugia]

In another thread, we have this assertion:

There are not two different creation accounts. Chapter one of Genesis gives us the outline of God's creation. Chapter 2 just fills in some details.

Question for debate: Are Genesis 1 and 2 two different creation accounts by two different authors, a unified account by a single author, or something else entirely?

[SiNcE_1985]

This reads like someone who is so uncomfortable with questions about their beliefs that they make a big deal about ‘relevance’ in order to deflect.

You may have read it that way, but that's not where its coming from.

The smarter tactic would have been to simply ignore the thread - which might have then quietly slipped down the list and forgotten.

It was/is a legitimate question, and one of which I've yet to receive a satisfactory answer for.

[The Tanager]

Sorry, I’m not sure I follow that line of reasoning. Could you perhaps state it another way?

I’ll try by mirroring the question you asked me. To what extent does the fact that the idea of the machine predate scientific claims that use that metaphor (i.e., show several parallels with it) weaken the case for those scientific claims? I would say it doesn’t weaken the case because the metaphors used to describe something are separate from the actual truth of something.

[A Freeman]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #50]
Difflugia: "Scholars date Genesis 1 (the P source) to the sixth century BC."

Which would place its alleged writing during the captivity of the 2-tribed "House of Judah" in Babylon, after the destruction of Solomon's Temple in 588 BC and the deportation of "House of Judah" into Babylon, ignoring hundreds and hundreds of years of previous historical evidence, and the Biblical account itself.

This is, of course, hundreds of years AFTER The Law was given to Moses (~900 years) and the Israelites at Mt. Horeb in Sinai, hundreds of years AFTER king David and Solomon (>300 years).

So why did these so-called scholars choose the sixth century BC for their alleged dating of the Books of Moses? Because that's when they were given to Ezra to reproduce/copy? Or because the other Prophets of that time (e.g. Jeremiah and Isaiah) called Babylon out for their obvious idol worship of Bel/Marduk (which is what the Enumi Elish is really about)?

Why should anyone believe these so-called scholars and their faulty and completely unreliable dating methods?

Difflugia: "We have tablets of the Enuma Elish that physically predate this by two centuries and scholars generally date the text itself to the early second millenium, before even traditionalists think Genesis was composed."

You mean we have so-called scholars comparing COPIES of these texts (NOT the originals). "Scholars" who first tried to date the Enuma Elish to have been written during the reign of Hammurabi (~1792-1750 BC) before that was completely discredited, only to have been forced to revise their estimates several times and over a thousands years to arrive at their latest guess, based on the COPY they have.

The Book of Genesis has 50 chapters, which provide detailed historical accounts of people and events, as well as prophecies about events hundreds and even thousands of years in advance of their occurrence, including some which have been fulfilled recently (within the past 80-200 years). So this "scholarly" comparison is based upon a copy, written in a language belonging to a people chronicled in Genesis (Accad/Akkad), which contains some similarities to a few verses in the first three chapters of the 50 chapter Book of Genesis.

Normally, common-sense would dictate that when we find a detailed historical account, and then thousands of years later we find a story written that contains a handful of vaguely similar references, that the detailed historical account would be taken to have preceded the vague summary found thousands of years later. Even before considering the prophecies. But we live in a world where common-sense is extremely uncommon, and true wisdom/logic is extremely difficult to find, also exactly as prophesied (by Ezra/Esdras no less).

2 Esdras 5:8-10 (speaking of the final generation/end-times/last days, i.e. now)
5:8 There SHALL be a confusion also in many places, and the fire shall often be sent out again, and the wild beasts shall change their places, and child-bearing women shall bring forth monsters (metaphorically):
5:9 And salt waters shall be found in the sweet, and all friends shall destroy one another; then shall common-sense hide itself, and understanding withdraw itself into his secret chamber,
5:10 And shall be sought of many, and yet not be found: then shall unrighteousness and incontinency be multiplied upon Earth.

Difflugia: "[With that in mind, do you have any evidence beyond your own wishful thinking for why this is a "very obvious myth/lie?"]"

As above please. We see this same pattern of pseudo-science, that ignores a mountain of evidence and works backwards to arrive at its preconceived notions repeated by these alleged scholars every time a new discovery is made. The Epic of Gilgamesh, with its ridiculous and completely unseaworthy boat, is another that the "scholars" believe the account of Noah's Ark in Genesis allegedly plagiarized, which is likewise exactly backwards. We literally build container ships today to specifications that Noah's ark was built to, proving the basic "science" and engineering to build large ships came directly out of the same book (Genesis) thousands of years before the first container ship was constructed.

[Difflugia]

Scholars date Genesis 1 (the P source) to the sixth century BC.

Which would place its alleged writing during the captivity of the 2-tribed "House of Judah" in Babylon, after the destruction of Solomon's Temple in 588 BC and the deportation of "House of Judah" into Babylon,

Exactly.

ignoring hundreds and hundreds of years of previous historical evidence,

Nobody's ignoring anything. What historical evidence are you talking about?

and the Biblical account itself.

The biblical account is what offers many clues to a later dating:

John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, p. lxiv:

The date of the composition of P^g lies between the promulgation of the Deuteronomic law (621 B.c.), and the post-Exilic reformation under Ezra and Nehemiah (444). It is later than Deut., because it assumes without question the centralisation of worship at one sanctuary, which in Dt. is only held up as an ideal to be realised by a radical reform of established usage.

David M. Carr, "Introduction to Genesis," The New Oxford Annotated Bible, Fifth Edition, p. 8:

Many important parts of Genesis, however, were not written until after the monarchy had fallen in 586 bce and Judean leaders were living in exile in Babylon. According to many scholars, this is the time when the Abraham narrative was written, and the theme of the promise of the land and much progeny was added to earlier stories about Jacob and Joseph. Through such new compositions and additions, former royal scribes adapted earlier writings about creation and ancestors to reassure the exiles of God’s intent to bless them as God earlier had blessed their ancestors. Moreover, they used this theme of promise to link earlier separate stories to each other and to the Moses story that followed. Alongside these scribal adaptations, a group of priestly authors wrote a parallel version of many stories in Genesis, starting with the seven‐day creation account in 1.1–2.3 and the genealogy in ch 5, continuing with a priestly version of the flood story, and moving on from God’s covenant of circumcision with Abraham (ch 17) to short stories about the inheritance of this covenant promise by his descendants. This layer of texts in Genesis is called “P” for “Priestly source,” because of its strong links to other Pentateuchal texts in Exodus–Numbers that focus on the priesthood of Aaron and sacrificial worship at the tabernacle. For example, in structure and vocabulary, the seven‐day creation account in 1.1–2.3 anticipates the story of the creation of the Priestly tabernacle at the end of the book of Exodus (Ex 35–40).

Far from ignoring the biblical account, the experts closely analyze the textual clues to glean information that isn't necessarily apparent at first glance or to a more naive reading.

This is, of course, hundreds of years AFTER The Law was given to Moses (~900 years) and the Israelites at Mt. Horeb in Sinai, hundreds of years AFTER king David and Solomon (>300 years).

Yes. The setting of the stories is much earlier than they were written. This often happens in both historiography and historical fiction.

Why should anyone believe these so-called scholars and their faulty and completely unreliable dating methods?

Because, while imperfect, actual scholarship is far, far more reliable than superstitious dogmatism.

"Scholars" who first tried to date the Enuma Elish to have been written during the reign of Hammurabi (~1792-1750 BC) before that was completely discredited, only to have been forced to revise their estimates several times and over a thousands years to arrive at their latest guess, based on the COPY they have.

Sure. New information and analysis techniques allow the revision of old estimates. That's why a scientific approach is better than dogma.

We see this same pattern of pseudo-science, that ignores a mountain of evidence and works backwards to arrive at its preconceived notions repeated by these alleged scholars every time a new discovery is made.

Your projection is precious.

[A Freeman]

What passes as "scholarship" today, is people guessing at things they know absolutely nothing about, e.g. the age of the universe, or of the Sun, or of Earth, or of the age of manuscripts, for which they only have COPIES.

But when people make the "scholars" into their gods, or pseudo-scientific dating technology (e.g. carbon-14 dating, which is wildly inaccurate and totally unreliable), they are conned into believing that their gods are allegedly correct in their assumptions, and the FACTS provided to us by our Creator are allegedly wrong (Isa. 5:20-21).

All part of the upside-down and backwards "logic" (which, in truth, is illogical) that humans employ because they lack the facility to see things as they really are, through spiritual eyes.

[Difflugia]

What passes as "scholarship" today, is people guessing at things they know absolutely nothing about,

Apology accepted.

If you'd like to do more than guess, here are a few books to help you get started:

• The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein
• Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman
• In Search of 'Ancient Israel:' A Study in Biblical Origins by Philip R. Davies
• The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel by Thomas L. Thompson

[Clownboat]

What passes as "scholarship" today, is people guessing at things they know absolutely nothing about, e.g. the age of the universe, or of the Sun, or of Earth, or of the age of manuscripts, for which they only have COPIES.

But when people make the "scholars" into their gods, or pseudo-scientific dating technology (e.g. carbon-14 dating, which is wildly inaccurate and totally unreliable), they are conned into believing that their gods are allegedly correct in their assumptions, and the FACTS provided to us by our Creator are allegedly wrong (Isa. 5:20-21).

All part of the upside-down and backwards "logic" (which, in truth, is illogical) that humans employ because they lack the facility to see things as they really are, through spiritual eyes.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates
(I was going to put the slander in italics for you, but realized that would be almost your entire reply so I didn't bother).

I also recognize your attempt to level the playing field by insinuating that people treat scholars like you do your god concept. This is not accurate.
Allow me to demonstrate:
If I were to ask you if the god concept you believe in could be wrong about something, you would respond with a 'no'.
If you were to ask me if scholars can be wrong, I would respond with a 'yes'.
The differences are black and white.

You should study up on our dating methods and not just write them off. It's interesting stuff and trying to disbelieve in any of the available god concepts has nothing to do with it like you falsely think. The evidence for this is all the religious people that accept that our dating methods do work. The converse is actually true, that our dating methods are ignored by some religious people, for no other reason then to maintain preconceived religious beliefs.

So in this reply, you projected god beings on us naming them scholars and a belief that dating methods are accepted in order to not believe in some creator god being, when the opposite is what is actually happening (dating methods are reject because of god beliefs).

[A Freeman]

Logical Fallacies

An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or the argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion.

1 Corinthians 3:18-20
3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
3:20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are WORTHLESS.

Arguing based on the views of irrelevant experts is called an argument from false authority:
When a person making a claim is presented as an expert who should be trusted when his or her expertise is not in the area being discussed.

Matthew 15:13-14
15:13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath NOT planted, shall be rooted up.
15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch (or Pit).

Arguing based on the views of the crowd: appeal to popularity or argumentum ad populum, etc:
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."

Exodus 23:2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to [do] evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to agree falsely with the majority and thereby pervert [judgment]:

[Clownboat]

Logical Fallacies

An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or the argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion.

1 Corinthians 3:18-20
3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
3:20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are WORTHLESS.

Arguing based on the views of irrelevant experts is called an argument from false authority:
When a person making a claim is presented as an expert who should be trusted when his or her expertise is not in the area being discussed.

Matthew 15:13-14
15:13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath NOT planted, shall be rooted up.
15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch (or Pit).

Arguing based on the views of the crowd: appeal to popularity or argumentum ad populum, etc:
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."

Exodus 23:2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to [do] evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to agree falsely with the majority and thereby pervert [judgment]:

Does anyone here reading this understand why is was typed and what is meant to be conveyed? Seems like preaching to me, but that would be against the rules.