Responce to duecer:

Originally posted by jaywill

Actually Adam was created and was "very good" along with the rest of creation. He was innocent. He was neutral between God and the enemy of God which was lurking nearby to ruin God's work.

"And God saw everthing that He had made, and indeed it was very good ..." (Gen 1:31)

Creation stories are getting mixed here. In the second creation story, the one concerning Adam and Eve, there is no indication at all that Adam and Eve (and the rest of creation) are "very good". Only the Tree of Knowledge is specifically described in the second creation story in terms of the knowledge of good and evil. And since the tree divines such knowledge, it can only be logically concluded that both good and evil exist, in spite of the fact that Adam and Eve are ignorant of that existence and are thus swayed by a persuasive serpent.

The creation stories are completely different and mixing them will cause enormous problems of logic. To believe in one at the expense of the other shows a lack of spiritual depth to me. It certainly shows a high disregard for simple logic.

I won't speak for deucer but will only say that the logical flow of the creations stories would bear out his assertion to them being allegorical and not factual.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Did God ask Paul permission before he changed him from a child of the devil to a child of God? If not, does this not violate Paul's free will? If Paul did grant God permission to change him into a child of God could it not be said that Paul "choose" Christ?

Paul asserts his faith is free will

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15645991

Originally posted by Badwater
Creation stories are getting mixed here. In the second creation story, the one concerning Adam and Eve, there is no indication at all that Adam and Eve (and the rest of creation) are "very good". Only the Tree of Knowledge is specifically described in the second creation story in terms of the knowledge of good and evil. And since the tree divines such knowl ...[text shortened]... the creations stories would bear out his assertion to them being allegorical and not factual.

😉

Originally posted by Badwater
Creation stories are getting mixed here. In the second creation story, the one concerning Adam and Eve, there is no indication at all that Adam and Eve (and the rest of creation) are "very good". Only the Tree of Knowledge is specifically described in the second creation story in terms of the knowledge of good and evil. And since the tree divines such knowl the creations stories would bear out his assertion to them being allegorical and not factual.

====================================
Creation stories are getting mixed here. In the second creation story, the one concerning Adam and Eve, there is no indication at all that Adam and Eve (and the rest of creation) are "very good".
========================================

The second account starting (Genesis 2:25) is not a opposing account in the sense that you imagine. It is another angle of the same thing - an account with a particular focus which is not detailed in the first account.

There is no need to repeat everything that was covered in the first account ending with Genesis 2:3. There is no need to assume that the opposite is true in the second account concerning God observing that His creation was "very good".

Why would you assume that the exact opposite would be the case in the second account? Silence concerning the seventh day and God's resting in satisfaction is not sufficient reason to assume the opposite of Genesis 1:31 is the case in Genesis 2:4-25.

Though I do see two sections, I do not see sufficient reason to say that the second section contradicts and opposes the first.

=======================================
Only the Tree of Knowledge is specifically described in the second creation story in terms of the knowledge of good and evil. And since the tree divines such knowledge, it can only be logically concluded that both good and evil exist, in spite of the fact that Adam and Eve are ignorant of that existence and are thus swayed by a persuasive serpent.
==============================================

The first account says that everything that God observed that He created was very good. The prior existence of an enemy of God we may say surely was not very good. However, as long as Adam was in charge and obedient to God it was very good. What was good was that Adam was the deputy authority on the earth.

As long as Adam did not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil the ground would not be cursed.

Whatever "evil" there existed left over from a previous era, it was in check as long as Adam remained obedient to God.

So the existence of a tree of the knowledge of good and evil does not demand that there was no evil. Rather it was very good that all things were under Adam's obedient deputy authority.

That ended when Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

======================================
The creation stories are completely different and mixing them will cause enormous problems of logic.
==================================

I don't think that refering to each story to get a complete picture causes serious problems in logic. At least not so serious as to lead me to say "Well one must be right and the other wrong."

Two accounts with somewhat different focuses do not demand that I choose one or the other.


======================================
To believe in one at the expense of the other shows a lack of spiritual depth to me. It certainly shows a high disregard for simple logic.
========================================


You are certainly welcomed to your opinion on that. I could use more spiritual depth.

However, to me your reasons, I think are not valid.

Your logic seems to be that something not specifically mentioned in Genesis 2:4-25 of necessity must be the opposite to its mention in Genesis 1:1-31

Where is the soundness in that logic?

The first account simply says in a general way that God made them male and female. In the second account it goes into detail as to how God made them male and female. Is that a contradiction? No it is not.

I don't see any reason to assume that the creation was not also very good in the eyes of God in the second account. That is as long as Adam remained faithful to God, which came out of the decision of his free will.

I see a different focus on particlar details. I do not see valid logic neccesitating that the opposite of Gen. 1:31 has to be in anywhere in Genesis 2:4-25.

=========================================
I won't speak for deucer but will only say that the logical flow of the creations stories would bear out his assertion to them being allegorical and not factual.
=======================================

The flow of history from Genesis is seamless. Adam is mentioned on more than one geneology. Luke traces Christ's ancestory back to Adam the first man. First Chronicles traces a geneology including Adam.

And Cain moved east of Eden. It is hard to locate yourself east of any allegorical place.

The teaching of Jesus suggest strongly that He regarded Genesis as history. Paul of course regarded Genesis as history.

The fact that it was history does not necessitate that there were not some deeper symbolic matters being portrayed in the history. History verses allegory for Genesis is a false dichotomy.

Originally posted by jaywill
====================================

The second account starting (Genesis 2:25) is not a opposing account in the sense that you imagine. It is another angle of the same thing - an account with a particular focus which is not detailed in the first account....
Though I do see two sections, I do not see sufficient reason to say that the second section contradicts and opposes the first....

Then you are not reading Genesis. Tell you what - I'll give you a chance to demonstrate how they are the same before I demonstrate that they are different and oftentimes contradictory.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]====================================
Creation stories are getting mixed here. In the second creation story, the one concerning Adam and Eve, there is no indication at all that Adam and Eve (and the rest of creation) are "very good".
========================================

The second account starting (Genesis 2:25) is not a oppos ortrayed in the history. History verses allegory for Genesis is a false dichotomy.[/b]

I won't even begin to point out the flaws is what you allege, mainly because I think nothing would come of it. What I said stands.

Originally posted by Badwater
Then you are not reading Genesis. Tell you what - I'll give you a chance to demonstrate how they are the same before I demonstrate that they are different and oftentimes contradictory.

========================================

Then you are not reading Genesis. Tell you what - I'll give you a chance to demonstrate how they are the same before I demonstrate that they are different and oftentimes contradictory.

=============================================

I didn't just start reading Genesis recently. I started studying it over 30 years ago.

I am aware that there are some seemingly puzzling contradictory details if one wants to get into exactly when all the animals were made. But these paradoxes are not a problem to me.

Those things which I do regard as typology or of allegorical significance require that Genesis not be isolated from the rest of the Bible. It really has to be taken in context of the rest of the Bible, including the New Testament.

For example, the dry land rising above the dark waters on the third day many of us regard as a type of Christ rising from the dead. All life is mentioned after the land rising out from underneath the water on Day #3.

Why didn't the land rise on the second day, or the fourth, or fifth. It was the third day when the dry land came up (Gen. 1:9,10) And immediately after in verse 11 life is mentioned for the first time.

And spiritually, in the church our divine life begins with the resurrection of Jesus from the dead on the third day. We believers in Christ were born of God through the resurrecton of Christ from the dead.

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has regenerated us unto a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Peter 1:3)

Originally posted by Badwater
I won't even begin to point out the flaws is what you allege, mainly because I think nothing would come of it. What I said stands.

If you want to point out why the second section contradicts the first in the detail of God's satisfaction with His creation, I am opened to consider your ideas.

It's up to you.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Did God ask Paul permission before he changed him from a child of the devil to a child of God?

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Paul gave God permission before he changed him.

If not, does this not violate Paul's free will?

What free will? I am one who does not believe we have free will. 😉

If Paul did grant God permission to change him into a child of God could it not be said that Paul "choose" Christ?

Like I said, Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Paul gave God permission to change him.

Isa 29:16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

Remember when Jonah ran away and avoided his calling. I think maybe Paul was referring to something like that when he said this.
1 Corinthians 9:16-17
(16) For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!
(17) For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

When starting horses,most horses don't want to do what the trainer wants. After a trainer applies influence and pressure the horse figures out it is better to comply than to keep resisting. Did that horse have a choice? Yes, He could have not given up. He figured out it was better to do what was asked of him.

Originally posted by jaywill


I didn't just start reading Genesis recently. I started studying it over 30 years ago.

I am aware that there are some seemingly puzzling contradictory details if one wants to get into exactly when all the animals were made. But these paradoxes are not a problem to me...

To waste 30 years and come up with nothing is regrettable. The differences and contradictions in the creation stories go far beyond just animals. To wit:

Original State
Gen 1 - A watery chaos
Gen 2 - Dry land without rain

Sequence of Creation
Gen 1: Light
Firmamant
Dry land and seas
Vegetation
Stars and sun
Fish and birds
Land Animals
Man and woman
Gen 2: Mist
Man
Trees
Land animals and birds
Woman

Views of God Related in Text
Gen 1: Remote
Majestic; far transcending the human
Talks about humanity
Unswervingly purposeful; above the possibility of error
Gen 2: Accessible
Very manlike (for example, walks in the garden in the cool of the day)
Talks with humanity
A clever improviser when his ideas don't work (for example, animals are created to be fit helpers for man. When none of them proved to be a fit helper, only then did God decide to create a woman)

View of Humanity
Gen 1: Climax at end of creation; passive recipients of God's gifts.
Gen 2: Starting point of creation; active participant with God

Relationship of Sexes
Gen 1: Treated as equals (God made them together the same day, jointly blessed them, and gave them dominion over earth)
Gen 2: Man is supreme (Woman was made later to be his helper. In Chap. 3 she sinned first and was told 'Your husband shall rule over you.'😉

Method of Creation
Gen 1: By the word of God (God said "Let there be light" and there was light)
Gen 2: By causing existing substances to bring forth or become the desired creature (God formed man from dust; out of the ground God made to grow every tree; out of the ground God formed the beast; the rib which God took from man was made into a woman)

Literary Style
Gen 1: Impersonal list of events
Abstract thoughts
Polished, formal language with the force of poetry
Concise language which means exactly what it says
Gen 2: Personalized story with characters and plot
Vivid, concrete imagery
Informal narrative
Allusions and illustrations which mean more than they say

Timing
Gen 1: Six days of work, rest on seventh
Gen 2: No mention of time or day or rest

So -
I demonstrate that the second creation story is completely different from the first on every level. It is not another angle of the same thing. It is not even remotely the same thing. Any time you literalists want to engage in your little planar fantasy, the paradox of the very beginning of the Bible stands in your way and says you are inaccurate - no matter which stand you choose.

It is not a seamless accounting. The first account does not, and cannot, fold into the second at all. They are two separate creation accounts with their own agendas. The writings of the rest of the Bible must follow as such, for the planar believer cannot explain away the paradox of the creation stories without being blind to one at the expense of the other.

You and prittybeta would do well to engage in some real theological training. You might not waste decades engaging in useless 'study' if you did.

Then again, the ignorant are always the experts. And that's all I got to say about that.

Originally posted by Badwater
To waste 30 years and come up with nothing is regrettable. The differences and contradictions in the creation stories go far beyond just animals. To wit:

[b]Original State
Gen 1 - A watery chaos
Gen 2 - Dry land without rain

Sequence of Creation
Gen 1: Light
Firmamant
Dry land and seas
hen again, the ignorant are always the experts. And that's all I got to say about that.[/b]

You are not getting off on good start if you want to have a constructive conversation with me. You claim I have wasted my time in a way which is arrogant and offensive. And you follow that with an outlne which I suppose is meant to dazzle me as if I never considered comparing the two sections of Genesis before.

So you can make an outline.

Originally posted by jaywill
You are not getting off on good start if you want to have a constructive conversation with me. You claim I have wasted my time in a way which is arrogant and offensive. And you follow that with an outlne which I suppose is meant to dazzle me as if I never considered comparing the two sections of Genesis before.

So you can make an outline.

I persoanlly don't care whether you're dazzled or not. Predictably, you prefer outrage at how you're supposedly being treated so that you can continue to stick you head in the sand. I only said that I was going to demonstrate that you were mixing creation stories and I did that. You and the other literalists are not interested in a constructive conversation. The only constructive conversation you engage in is one that completed bends to your narrow, pre-establish viewpoints. I'll go with my training, thank you, and adopt a more exegetical view and praxis.

Originally posted by Badwater
To waste 30 years and come up with nothing is regrettable. The differences and contradictions in the creation stories go far beyond just animals. To wit:

[b]Original State
Gen 1 - A watery chaos
Gen 2 - Dry land without rain

Sequence of Creation
Gen 1: Light
Firmamant
Dry land and seas
hen again, the ignorant are always the experts. And that's all I got to say about that.[/b]

======================================
So -
I demonstrate that the second creation story is completely different from the first on every level. It is not another angle of the same thing. It is not even remotely the same thing. Any time you literalists want to engage in your little planar fantasy, the paradox of the very beginning of the Bible stands in your way and says you are inaccurate - no matter which stand you choose.
================================================

There are important similiarities.

In both sections the top of the pyramid of lives stands man. In the first section he is commited with image and dominion. The specific counsel of God "Let Us make man in Our image and according to Our likeness ..." (1:26) sets the creation of humanity off from the creation of all other things.

And in the second chapter Man's naming of all the animals indicates the same superiority.

But to tell the truth when you come on as you did, with an insult, it is not easy for me to want to read anything else from you.

Now if you want to talk I suggest you cool it on the insults. I will read your posts more carefully if you do not do that. I'll try to do likewise.

This is poisoning the well.

Another thing. Let's talk to one person at a time. Things you mean o say to some other poster you say to them. What you want to say to me you say to me. Please no scatter shot.

=================================
It is not a seamless accounting. The first account does not, and cannot, fold into the second at all. They are two separate creation accounts with their own agendas.
=================================

I disagree. First of all I spoke mainly of the continuation of the history of Adam's decendents on into Genesis. The clock does not stop. We do not ascend into a existential and abstract realm. It goes on to talk about the children of Adam and Eve in a historically seamless manner.

By the way We are first told that man is in the image of God. Then we are told man is placed before the tree of life which represents God's divine life. So the two portions together reveal a great biblical truth. Man is made as a vessel in the image of God to contain God.

"We have this treasure in earthen vessels that the excellency of the power may be of God and not of us." (2 Cor.4:7)

How man is to be a container and a vessel for God is an important theme throughout the rest of Scripture. Genesis contains the "seeds" of this truth. That is that man is in God's image and was to take into himself the uncreated divine life as portrayed in the tree of life.

I think that some people like to "divide and conquer" the living revelation of the Bible. They think by slicing and dicing it up into separate pieces they can "kill the beast" so to speak.

Any living thing will die when cut to pieces. Basically, I think you have been influenced by this school which wishes to attack some central themes of the Bible by displaying how you can slice and dice it up into pieces.

The question remains, why would the editor COMBINE them ?


That is all I have time for this morning.


====================================
The writings of the rest of the Bible must follow as such, for the planar believer cannot explain away the paradox of the creation stories without being blind to one at the expense of the other.
============================================

I think what is going on rather is that you are attacking some central theme of the Bible by pulling apart the plenary scheme of Scripture. You may be interested in turning them seemingly against each other.

Clever. But an old trick which has not impressed some of us.

Originally posted by Badwater
I persoanlly don't care whether you're dazzled or not. Predictably, you prefer outrage at how you're supposedly being treated so that you can continue to stick you head in the sand. I only said that I was going to demonstrate that you were mixing creation stories and I did that. You and the other literalists are not interested in a constructive conversation ...[text shortened]... iewpoints. I'll go with my training, thank you, and adopt a more exegetical view and praxis.

Okay, you have indentified "literalists" as the enemy.

So what are the most important symbols in Genesis to you then?

Set aside the matter of literal for a moment. So what symbols or allegories are you most impressed with?

I say that the formation of Eve from Adam is central. I say that the tree of life is central.

These two symbols are very important to the divine revelation. What do you say?