a-seeker

Forgive me, I didn't read your explanation of the problem...I will later. I've emboldened what interests me at this moment. I would say "No". They don't point to this to discredit the Bible; rather, the teaching of Inerrancy has provided the room to discredit the Bible. If we dropped inerrancy and approached the Bible simply as an historical document, employing responsible historical methodology, we would do a much better job of defending certain tenets of the faith--as it turns out, the facts of the Bible that pass muster happen to be the MOST impacting. clb

I despise pedantry but I will have to be pedantic. The discrepancy is more obvious in the Hebrew. Hebrew has a way to say, "and the Lord God HAD made every bird and beast". That is, it has a precise way of referring to past actions. That is not what is used here. It clearly says that the Lord God "made" (i.e. NOW) the birds and beasts. an analogy: suppose I told this narrative: "I was a farmer and I saw that my stocks were low for the upcoming winter; then I planted seeds; but the crops were bad; then I went to my neighbor and he said he would support me." When would you suppose I planted the seeds? Before or after I saw my stocks were low? After. Nothing would lead you to suppose that I had planted seeds. The Hebrew grammar is the same. the tense it uses has up to this point ALWAYS indicated an action being done there and then, not in the past. In Genesis 2.8 your translation will say, ".......he placed the man he had formed" or "whom he formed". The reason is that the Hebrew is very clear that God is acting on an object ALREADY created. Once more: If all we had were Genesis 2.4 onward, NO ONE WOULD SUPPOSE 2.19 REFERRED TO ANIMALS ALREADY MADE. If all we had were Genesis 2.4 onward, we would have convictions totally different from what we would have if all we had were Genesis 1. Tell me that if all you had were 2.4 you would conclude the earth was made in 7 days! There are simply too many discrepancies to dismiss me (and another-poster) as idiots for asking questions about these passages. Tell me, only reading 2.4 onward, you would immediately conclude that the first plants were made BEFORE Adam! Now I (and I believe another-poster) are perfectly ready to hear solutions. But they have to be GOOD solutions. I am not going to latch on to any proposal simply because its agenda is to make the two accounts sequentially consistent. Thus far I have met ZERO good solutions. clb

I find it difficult to identify the Sons of God in Genesis as descendants of Seth; Seth's line was the line of promise. The connotation of Genesis 5 is negative; taking any wife for themselves is not a good thing. Two other answers I've met: Sons of God refer to kings that lived in that time: to call a king a son of god was common. Polygamy was not a common practice in the ancient world except among royalty. That such unions produced might warriors is not implausible: they would have had the means to train their offspring, and their food supply would have been better. Another answer, in Genesis they are fallen angels who impregnate human women. This is difficult to reconcile with current conceptions about angels, and our Lord's lesson that angels don't marry (of course, this doesn't necessarily preclude their ability to produce offspring; but it is difficult to separate the two--that angels were created capable of procreation but not permitted to procreate...?). The sons of God in Job are angels. The Satan in Job does not appear to be identical to what we mean by Satan now and what the word meant in the N.T. Rather it was a satan, literally an antagonists. In the gospels sometimes Jesus is referred to as the son of God meaning he is the Messiah, and sometimes the son of God which had Trinitarian significance. Both are true of Him. clb

So, God can't spell? And the bold face is a man-made criteria. You have selected what errors the Bible can and cannot contain. clb Complete nonsense. When I speak of scribal errors like spelling errors, I am referring to the errors made by copyists, scribes who are working from copies. Inerrancy only speaks to errors of substance. It is clear that you don't understand the doctrine of inerrancy. You are reaching for anything you can to paint the Bible as document full of contradictions that are irreconcilable and full of errors and in doing so you you diminish the Word of God. And who decides that only errors of substance matter? And who decides what is and is not substantial? Are the number of angels at the tomb a matter of substance or not? Why? clb

Elsewhere I started a thread that was concerned broadly with the role of reason when reading Scripture; whether reason has any say in what is and is not true in Scripture. It quickly (and naturally) became a topic about "contradictions" and "inerrancy". In this thread I would rather if we mention supposed errors in Scripture and give explanations or solution of them. I am nervous to do so because a non-believer, not understanding the context of this OP, might use this thread to reinforce his/her current disbelief. I can only remedy this by saying that I am a Christian, I think there are errors in the Bible, and I think it completely reasonable and logical for me to be the one and think the other: indeed, non-Christian explanations for the resurrection simply does not pass the muster (or mustard, as I heard one person say ) I list the Resurrection narratives. A Harmony shows discrepancies over several points: how many women were there? did MM and Mary son of J see the stone rolled away, or was it already rolled when they arrived? How many angels were present, one, two, none? I have found no REASONABLE solution; that is, so far, all solutions I have examined require of me an act of intellectual suicide. I have to suspend clear thinking altogether. But I am certainly open and eager to hear them again, and new ones. Another one: the two genealogies given for Jesus (Matt and Luke). They seem disparate; Shiloh has elsewhere mentioned an attractive solution, and I would greatly appreciate if he developed it a bit more in this thread. And another (apparent) one: Genesis depicts the sun, moon, and stars to float within what we would call the atmosphere. That is, not in outer space. Put myself in an ancient mind who lacks precise instruments and has only what he sees with his own unaided eyes, that makes clear sense to me. It certainly looks like the sun and moon and stars float in a dome-like structure. If this is true, then whatever inspiration means, it does not mean that God corrected every false belief the ancients had on astronomy. He allowed these errors to remain; that is not the same thing as God lying. clb clb

Any time you consult a commentary on a Biblical passage you are allowing "outside" ideas and motives influence you. We interpret in a community. Again, when we look at the historical context of the Bible, at documents derived from archaelogy, or how language was used outside the Bible, we are allowing influence of outside ideas and motives. When I pick up a Greek Bible, I am allowing the ideas and motives of text criticism, employed by scholars, to influence my reading of the Bible. And yes, I would find a temple motif; and no, I would not discover the gap theory. No, I certainly would not discover any form of evolution, except perhaps in the very limited sense that Adam is described as "evolved" from dirt, and eve from a rib. Yes, I would discover that the 7 days was a literary structure. Yes, I would conclude that the Bible makes no comment on the age of the earth; that was not the point of the 7 days. clb

So, God can't spell? And the bold face is a man-made criteria. You have selected what errors the Bible can and cannot contain. clb Complete nonsense. When I speak of scribal errors like spelling errors, I am referring to the errors made by copyists, scribes who are working from copies. Inerrancy only speaks to errors of substance. It is clear that you don't understand the doctrine of inerrancy. You are reaching for anything you can to paint the Bible as document full of contradictions that are irreconcilable and full of errors and in doing so you you diminish the Word of God. Sir, please explain to me how else I am supposed to interpret the following: I mean, if by original you mean the original first copy, and not the actual paper that Paul's pen touched, you need to be clearer. No one would read that any other way than to suppose you thought Paul could've misspelled something. Good grief. You just said it was fine if Paul misspelled a word. You believe that every jot and tittle is inspired, which I think would include spelling. So naturally I asked whether God can spell. clb

You are the only one with a Need-based belief. You accuse me of believing only certain doctrines which I need to be true. I have refuted that claim, 100%, hands down. I have cited numerous examples of how my convictions are based on evidence, not needs, and numerous examples of how your belief in inerrancy is based on need, not evidence. You need the Bible to be 100% true. You have said it; said that if the Bible is not 100% true then how can we be sure about any of it--how is that not a screaming example of a need-based conviction!?! Let me put it this way, suppose I am a Muslim and you point out an error in the Koran and I say, "well, that can't be an error". You say, "why not?" I say, "because if that is an error, how do I that Allah is one is not an error?" Would you say, "Good point"? Or would you scorn the operating logic which is emotional not rational? You point to the Bible's own (supposed claim) to be 100% true; of course, you simply accept that claim which is one of the claims that should be tested if inerrancy is to remain standing at the end of the day.

That is exactly the kind of desperate maneuver which bewilders me and will only shipwreck an honest man’s faith who was fostered on inerrancy and then discovered errors. Mark has MaryM and Mary J and Salome come and find the stone already rolled away; Matthew has only MM and MJ and they witness the rolling. Mark has a man inside the tomb; Matthew has the angel sit on the stone. In the Synoptics the angels tell them the good news and they go and tell the disciples; in John only MM is present, the stone already rolled away, does NOT meet angels, goes back under the assumption that someone stole Jesus’ dead body. I mean, come on. Did MM go to the tomb, find it already rolled, then leave, come back, find it back in place, then witness it rolled once more? Only desperation would make me find a way to harmonize that. If the Koran attempted to harmonize a parallel puzzle about Mohammed you would cite that as proof that it isn’t inspired. You are asking me to commit intellectual suicide. Okay, bear with me; I am sincerely interested in this solution, but I need clarifying points. In Matthew, is Jacob Joseph's biological father, or Mary's? In Luke, was Heli the biological father of Joseph, or of Mary? Like I’ve said, there is nothing in the above quotation that demonstrates a need-based conclusion. Point to one sentence that says I believe Jesus was raised because I need him to be. One sentence. Everything above is about the evidence. Logically materialism falls apart. When we apply responsible historical methodology to the gospels (i.e. Reason, not emotional needs) then the best EXPLANATI0N (not the best what-makes-me-feel-better assumption) is that he was raised. If I said "All men are rational beings; Socrates is a rational being; therefore Socrates is a man" do I affirm this deduction because I need it to be true? Or because I perceive that it is true? Yes, I don’t buy inerrancy at the moment. It is inerrancy that I challenge, not belief in the Resurrection. The resurrection does not sink or swim with inerrancy. Either Jesus is God/man and was raised or he isn’t and wasn’t. Either there were two angels, or one, or none, but there can be no combination of the three. Now these are completely isolated historical issues. To say that there was only one angel when other authors thought there two has no impact on whether Jesus was raised. It is like saying that because Ptolemy got his facts wrong about the solar system he got his facts wrong about everything.I am very willing to do embrace inerrancy when good solutions are offered for the discrepancies in the Bible. AS is, I have not met them.

So, God can't spell? And the bold face is a man-made criteria. You have selected what errors the Bible can and cannot contain. clb

Never once have I said that Jesus was raised “because I need Him to be raised to feel better about the world.” That is a need based conclusion. That's irrelevant. We are not talking about human historical documents/historical claims. We are talking about the Word of God. Yes, and whether it is inerrant. Now obviously if I began with the doctrine of inerrancy...well then, I will believe it is inerrant. But if I don't begin there, then I examine it. Lo and behold it shows things that seem to be incompatible. I look around for explanations: every single explanation is weak....so weak that I would not embrace them UNLESS I ALREADY BELIEVED IN INERRANCY. But I don't. Yet one of the claims in the Bible that meets the standards of reasonable thinking is that Jesus was raised. Now, it just so happens that this is a very significant event, cosmic even. Thus, I have very good grounds for believing I am saved. This is not a need-based equation. There are numerous examples of people who begin reading the Bible to refute it, then start realizing that very alarming things in it are actually true; they come to faith in Jesus yet do not believe in inerrancy. They are still saved. You cannot say they put their faith in Jesus because they emotionally need Him to have been raised; they approached the Bible initially with the exact opposite desire. Yes. It is a selective approach; but not a selective approach based on "need"; or, if there is a need, it is the need that claims be true, that they be backed by evidence. Like I’ve said, there is nothing in the above quotation that demonstrates a need-based conclusion. Point to one sentence that says I believe Jesus was raised because I need him to be. One sentence. Everything above is about the evidence. Logically materialism falls apart. When we apply responsible historical methodology to the gospels (i.e. Reason, not emotional needs) then the best EXPLANATI0N (not the best what-makes-me-feel-better assumption) is that he was raised. How does the number of angels not affect inerrancy? The gospels do not agree; nor does any explanation satisfy. AGain, the parts I trust are the parts that are verifiable by responsible historical methods; you place the same expectations on the sciences, do you not? You won’t believe a claim until it has been tested in the laboratory manner. NOw if what you are asking is how do I have the kind of conviction in Christ that we have in, say, mathematics. I don't. It's called faith. Faith is a kind of knowledge; but it is not the same knowledge given by math or by logical deductions. There are times when I doubt; when I wonder if I have looked at the facts right, or whether some atheistic explanation is better than the one that underpins Christianity. And then what do I do? Do reject Christianity? No! I go back to the evidence; lo and behold, the best explanation for Christianity remains to be that Christ was raised. Yes, I don’t buy inerrancy at the moment. It is inerrancy that I challenge, not belief in the Resurrection. The resurrection does not sink or swim with inerrancy. Either Jesus is God/man and was raised or he isn’t and wasn’t. Either there were two angels, or one, or none, but there can be no combination of the three. Now these are completely isolated historical issues. To say that there was only one angel when other authors thought there two has no impact on whether Jesus was raised. It is like saying that because Ptolemy got his facts wrong about the solar system he got his facts wrong about everything.I am very willing to do embrace inerrancy when good solutions are offered for the discrepancies in the Bible. AS is, I have not met them.

That is an empirical claim. For it to be true then I would have to be lying when I said the Bible contains errors but Jesus is the risen Lord. I am not lying. I believe both. Empirically you are wrong. Atheists do not believe in God yet oppose the Bible. They simply do not believe in God. Well you can meditate all day long on the "origins" of donuts too. But until you visit the donut bakery you'll lack "empirical knowledge" of donut "creation". You either believe in the "evidence" of the Creation itself or you don't. That makes no sense to me. You made a claim that "either one believes in the record or they don't". Now I assume you meant "all of the record...". To refute that I would need to show only one person who didn't believe in inerrancy, but still believed in Christ. There is me, and all those who acknowledge the infallibility of the Bible, which is different. Ergo your claim is proven false. Had nothing to do with doughnuts or origins. clb

Excellent question. A few reasons: 1) People assume on this forum that unless I embrace inerrancy then I am either a bad Christian, or not a Christian at all. 2) inerrancy has shipwrecked many peoples' faith because they were raised on the kind of logic exhibited on this thread: if it isn't inerrant, then none of it is true. That is nonsense. I would protect any that I can from that damage. 3) The logic behind inerrancy is terrible. I am a fan of good thinking. Thus I create threads that promote good thinking. clb

I've emboldened what I think an excellent question. If I were an atheist or otherwise, the goal would certainly be to get you to question Scripture, and ultimately to reject Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. But I am a Christian. I want you to continue to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. I work to get everyone to accept Jesus as the Son of God and our Savior. I am, at the moment, too tired to address the other questions posed. And that is okay by me, since I think what I have said is really all that matters and all that should matter amongst us believers. clb

I say be flattered that you are considered pretty. And be done with it.

And you ignore the part where the things He accuses adam of are 1) listening to the voice of eve 2) eaten of the tree of which He commanded adam to not eat of it. The Lord did not at all accuse adam of failing to protect the garden or the tree. You are projecting your opinion into scripture. Okay, I don't get the problem... What does everyone think "protecting" the garden mean? Why is this a big deal? clb

The topic in the passage is irrelevant to the point I was making. The passage speak of how Scripture was inspired. An inerrant God doesn't inspire error. What this passage does provide us is a paradigm for understanding how Scripture is transmitted. All of Scripture is the result of the Holy Spirit moving upon the human writers. I would also add that the Bible often employs a broader use of the word "prophecy" to include more than eschatological/future events. Prophecy is also defined as forthtelling of truth, not merely foretelling the future. It doesn't contain geographical errors or historical errors. In fact, one thing that sets the Bible apart is its impeccable track record in that area. As for the notion that they believed the sun revolved around the earth.... The Bible makes NO geocentric claims. So that is a nonstarter as well. We have enough copies to compare that we can deduce what was contained in the originals. Even if the originals had spelling errors, that does not affect inerrancy in any way. What effects inerrancy are errors of substance. No I didn't say that one genealogical record when through Mary. Rather it went through her family's lineage and from her father to Joseph who for intents and purposes became the son of Mary's father, since Mary cannot own property. Has it ever occurred to you that there was more than one visit to the tomb and thus different incidents with the angels? Inerrancy is objective not subjective. As I stated, there are parts of the Bible that are important to you that you have no problem accepting as inerrant. Your approach to the issue of inerrancy is really based on what claims the Bible makes that you think are believable, judging from your posts. You have a selective approach to the issue of inerrancy and frankly, it is lacks any real credibility. No. That is completely wrong. Show me the posts. I don't deny that there may be posts that can be read in that way, but then this is a forum and whimsical writing will occur; but I am skeptical of your claim. Now.... Do you believe everything in Josephus? Do believe nothing in it? Or do you believe some of it? By what criterion? Do you believe everything of every historian that ever wrote? Do you believe nothing of every author that ever wrote? on what grounds? Do you believe that Galileo published papers insisting on a heliocentric universe (there is strong evidence for this)? Do you believe that he whispered at his trial "yet it moves...." (there is weak evidence for this)? Do you believe it all or none of it? Do you believe there was a Galileo? Do you believe there was a trial? Do you believe he was persecuted (weak evidence)? It's not a selective approach to inerrancy. It's a selective approach to documents. I test the examine the Scriptures, as i am commanded to do. And I find certain things unlikely, and certain things certain...so certain that only a bias in favor of other assumptions would lead me to reject. And the reasoning that would like behind it I have seen to be wrong (i.e. responsible historical methods reveal that the best explanation for the puzzle of Jesus is that he was in fact raised; materialist explanations of reality say this is impossible; responsible philosophy proves that materialism is wrong. Therefore, the best explanation of the gospels is that Jesus was raised. That is good history in practice. Now, having isolated the core of the gospel, I turn to the mundane issue of inerrancy. If an author says one angel was present at the tomb, and another that two were at the tomb, I have the intellectual obligation to determine which is right, or both. I see no reason why one would leave out an angel, and another would leave out both. Reason tells me that the authors have reasons other than pure history to present what they have presented. Essentially, it matters not. When I examine the gospels, I find it as difficult to conclude that Jesus was not raised; just as difficult as to believe that George Washington was not an historical figure who first governed our nation. Whether he cut down a cherry tree...? Whether there were two or one or no angels...? Non-essential. clb

God did not accuse Adam of not keeping what was placed in his hands. You, on the other hand, accuse Adam of allowing Satan in. God did not give Adam control over the angles, so your accusation is inaccurate, and extra-biblical, unless you can provide scripture where God held Adam accountable for such. Holding onto extra-biblical teachings, and spreading them, walks the very thin line of false teaching and cult building. That is the reason why we should not accuse anyone of sinning when it is not clear that someone had sinned, despite of our personal beliefs, and yes, what you are stating is you opinion. Are you trying to tell me that God does not hold us accountable for what he puts in our hands? Psa 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? Psa 8:5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Psa 8:6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: Did God create Lucifer, who later became Satan? Was Satan on the earth at the time of Adam? Everything on the earth at the time of Adam was under his dominion!!!! "Dominion" māšal: A verb denoting to rule, to reign, or to have dominion over. I didn't think you could come up with any scripture where God Himself accused Adam. You are only showing how you accuse him. That is extra-biblical and just an opinion. I have already posted it here.... God said to Adam...... Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: There are two things the Lord God accuses Adam with. (1) Adam listened to the voice of Eve. (2) he ate from the forbidden tree. Before the Lord told Adam not to eat from the forbidden tree, he told him to "keep", which means "to protect" it also also means "to be a watchmen" to the Garden. A watchman is required to guard from the enemy and to protect the innocent. Ezekiel was also called by God to be a watchmen to Israel. Ezekiel 3:17 “Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman to the house of Israel; whenever, you hear a word from My mouth, warn them from Me. The Bible only gives us the words of Eve in what she said to the serpent. What was Adam's response as being a watchman for the Garden when he heard Eve talking to the serpent? Nothing!!! His Job was to warn her of the danger in conversing with the devil. Why is Adam alone responsible for their fall and mankind? Ezekiel 3:20 “Again, when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I place an obstacle before him, he will die; since you have not warned him, he shall die in his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand. Ezekiel 3:21 “However, if you have warned the righteous man that the righteous should not sin and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; and you have delivered yourself.” ​If Adam would have spoke up and warn his wife Eve, things would have been a lot different. Thank you for providing proof that God never accused Adam of letting Satan in. Nobody should read into scripture what is not there. There is no proof that Adam did not keep the Garden as God commanded him to. I suppose you assume that because Eve took of the fruit and ate it, Adam is to blame? I think your inability to compare scripture with scripture and come to a conclusion based on what the Holy Spirit teaches is sad. You do know how the Spirit teaches his children don't you? 1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. I am reading your posts and I don't see where the disagreement lies. Let others in clb

Tristen, No, that is in no way what I am proposing and I have made this explicit in the OP and in posts! Here, from the OP I mean, I don't know how else to put it! Someone, please help me. Did I not clearly say in the OP that we should not accommodate the sciences by reinterpreting Scripture!? I clearly have said that it is responsible to reexamine Scripture. Reexamining and reinterpreting are not the same thing. Reexamining simply means, looking at it again with fresh eyes (don't read it with the intention of seeing what you always saw). Perhaps you will see what you saw previously. A doctor may have originally thought his subject died of poison; then studies in poison are published which makes him wonder whether his original diagnosis was correct. He goes back to study it again...and he consciously resists the impulse to look at all the same things in the same manner. 1 of 2 things happens: he finds nothing new, and so confirms his original diagnosis; or he sees things he did not see at first, and corrects his original diagnosis. It is the same with exegesis. There are people here who suspect any reading of Scripture other than one that affirms YEC because they can only conclude that an interpretation other than YEC is an accommodation of science. This is NOT true. The doctor's renewed diagnosis was not an accommodation to the new discoveries. The reexamination was influenced by the new discoveries. That is the only influence I am allowing to science: the impulse to reexamine...not what we will find. If we find nothing, then we dismiss the scientific claims. But perhaps you will see something else. In either case it is not natural science but exegesis (and its sub-disciplines of linguistics and history and archaelogy) that guides the process. Scientific claims are merely the spring board. There is no obligation to make Scripture agree with science; there is an obligation to reexamine Scripture when 99% of the scientific community says something contrary to A POPULAR INTERPRETATION. I capitalize to show that we are not pitting scientific claims against God. We are pitting scientific claims against exegetical claims. CLAIMS IN BOTH!! I hate using captilization Both are claims made by humans. Fallible interpreters; interpreting both creation and scripture. Both creation and scripture come from God. We are trying to read both, through the tools of science in the one and the tools of exegesis in the other. Why is this so hard to understand? It's as if everyone thinks that science is a completely human enterprise while the study of Scripture is so easy that we intuitively understand every verse as it was intended by the author! if the latter were true, why would we have so many commentaries over so many years disagreeing with each other--and don't anyone dare say because Satan has his hand in the pot. Pious Christians disagree over interpretations with pious Christians. Both Scripture and Creation were created by God. Both Scripture and Creation should point to God as they were intended. Both Scripture and Creation are therefore objects of study presented to fallible subjects (i.e. us). We are all therefore trying to figure out creation and scripture.

My own view, it is not substitutionary atonement. That makes no sense to me rationally, and most of Scripture points to something else: Participation. There is a mystical participation in the death and life of Jesus Christ upon faith. He submits to the Father; the Father raises Him: this process he enacts in and with us--like a man who has already stood against the current of a mighty river, then gives his hand to those too weak to do the same on their own. clb

Hi Brother Connor, still... What if you read a flashback from the beginning to set the example for Genesis 2 account? Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Another inconsistency? Because the celestial bodies in the heavens and the lights coming from them were not created until the third day. So... a flashback from the very beginning. Now you can cry foul to the flow of things but Moses in his writings did end one topic regarding the seventh day and began another which was addressing the coming generations of man. So he set the stage again as referring to the sixth day on how God watered the earth by a mist because no man was there yet to till the ground. Hence the flashback before man was created in addressing the coming generations of man by starting at the beginning and in more detail of the creation of man. Now you brought up the animals. Genesis 2:18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. I find the use of the term formed significant as deferring from created. I also find that He did not formed two of them as in male & female, but out of every beast & fowl in the singular sense. So I see that as making a copy of each beast of the field and each fowl of the air in bringing that copy of them from the beast in the field and the fowls in the air for Adam to name in trying to find a singular helpmeet. So that cannot be the time when God was creating male and female of each kind on the fifth day as they would be spread out all over creation, and because they are spread out all over creation, God was forming each kind in front of Adam to signify Himself as the Creator of all things, and more importantly, Adam's up and coming helpmeet which Jesus referred to as scriptural truth. Mark 10:5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Jesus validated the two accounts of Genesis; how God made them male and female, and the indepths account on how in the beginning, they were one flesh as Eve came out of Adam; and not the ground. I appreciate your recognition of me as a brother however, so far the attempts (including your own, sorry) to put the two accounts into sequential congruity seem implausible. No, day 3 is not a flash back to day 1. The narrative is framed thematically, chronologically. It is structured on a 7 day pattern because 7 is a number signifying completion, as well as the number of days dedicated to festivals celebrating the inauguration of a temple, both pagan and monotheistic; the days 1-3 correspond to the days 4-6 as habitable regions correspond to inhabitants: a major theme of Genesis (at the start of Genesis there are two problems, the earth was uninhabitable and uninhabited; Abraham's main problem was he was without land, i.e. habitable area, and without seed, i.e. habitation). Thus day 1 creates light, governed by the sun and moon in day 4; day 2 creates sky and sea, governed by bird and fish; day 3 creates land, governed by beast and man. The theme is Kingdoms and Kings, with man the chief King of them all (under, of course, God). Genesis makes no comment on either YEC or OEC. Thus I have no need to reconcile the two accounts. My faith in Jesus does not depend upon it. Genesis maintains its own consistency. for from my point of view there are two alternatives regarding the chronology: either the author did not intend them to be sequentially congruent, or he was an idiot. There are too many subtitles and literary maneuvers to embrace the second, so I embrace the first. clb Oh, as to this Why? My faith doesn't depend on it. I am already saved and belief in a global flood will not save me any more. And to this (sorry, I keep finding things that I missed) That's fine. Keep in mind that the lesson of the tortoise and the hair (HARE, ha) remains powerful even if a tortoise and a hare never really had a race.

I agree with you completely. They were charged with guarding the garden. The verbs used for Adam's vocation are the same used for the priestly duties to protect the temple from unclean things. the garden of Eden is depicted as the inner room, Eden as the holy of holies. But I don't see the problem here. The act of disobedience flows from their failure to protect the garden; or rather is their failure. Had Adam and Eve banished the serpent instead of yielding, then they would have been victorious. Certainly the sin of Adam and Eve was not simply that the serpent slithered in; as if they were to play linebackers against a snake. Another puzzle (not really for me, but for literalistic readings of Genesis): Adam's and Eve's eyes were opened only after BOTH had eaten. Why were Eve's eyes not opened immediately after eating? clb

Well, interesting enough, you are taking the correct course in your walk with Him regarding the two genealogies. 1 Timothy 1:1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope; 2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. 3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. 5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. 10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; So don't worry about it but at the same time, don't refer to that as a cause for not believing in the scripture. You have faith in Jesus Christ and that is good, but may you bellieve someday that Jesus had validated the scripture. We can trust Jesus as our Good Shepherd to guide us by the scripture that has been kept by those that loved Him & His words in the KJV; and Jesus will show that to you too. Hobbes, I should state (though my posts might suggest otherwise) that I am a firm believer in Christ. The disparate genealogies in no way rattles my faith. Jesus validated Scripture; but never once does he give commentary on the YEC or OEC debate. He says that man and woman are to be one. I give my consent. Reading Genesis the way I do in no way invalidates that command. I simply do not think inerrancy was very important to Jesus, as if He would be upset if a spelling error occurred in the original texts, or a geographical error, or that our system were not geocentric but the canonical authors thought it was. clb

That is an empirical claim. For it to be true then I would have to be lying when I said the Bible contains errors but Jesus is the risen Lord. I am not lying. I believe both. Empirically you are wrong. Atheists do not believe in God yet oppose the Bible. They simply do not believe in God.

Well I must stop you for a moment. You have an assumption here that isn't quite correct. Noah took two of every "kind" not species. (Kind being fairly close to Genus or Family.) Also, it involves a logical direction of thought. If the mountains of the earth (high hills) were covered by water, then this eliminates the idea of a local flood. This is another mistake in what you've been told. It's ok, it's very common. Genesis 1 is a general overview of creation, while Genesis 2 is focused on the creation of man and the Garden of Eden. It isn't another account, but a more detailed account. A lot of what I've read in this section seems to derive from a few misconceptions you have about scripture, rather than actual problems with scripture. I'd be happy to help you get through a few other misconceptions or confusing points with you if you like, and help you understand them. Sure, I am open to correction. But I would not say I have misconceptions of Scripture. I might about inerrancy. I simply do not believe the Bible is without errors. The cosmology held by the author of Genesis is simply wrong. And it makes no difference to the value of Scripture. Scripture is a narrative ultimately about Jesus, not cosmology. Your distinction between "kind" and "species" sounds a bit too modern. Is there any evidence that the ancients made the same distinction? And what do you mean by the distinction? Is "bird" a "kind", so that really all Noah took was two birds and two mammals and two creepers? Obviously the Bible makes a distinction between ravens and doves. It seems a literalistic reading of Noah requires two of every animal that we give a different name to, from Giraffes to penguins. And a lot of this discussion goes back a long way. As far as the flood narrative, I agree absolutely that the story entails a global flood. A global flood that assumes erroneous views about the world. It is the product of myth. Perhaps there was a flood large enough that oral tradition from several groups preserved it in their own way (Gilgamesh, Noah). But they were not modern historians. They told stories. Stories get embellished. The Noah narrative is embellished for theological purposes, to make statements about God and man. clb