re: The origins of man (biblical)...

My Fiance's dad is a preacher (Baptist)
Anf this is what he told me....

Gen. 1 gives a list of the things God done
Gen. 2 Go back and restates Gen. 1 but just explains it in detail

I dont take everything in the bible literally. So I cant answer from that perspective...but

Because obviously Jesus didnt stand on the mountain and see the whole world...cause you cant see the whole world from one mountain top. I believe that part was a vision.

As for the whole genesis part. I think its a generalization. I think that evolution plays a part in God's creation. I also believe that the big bang theory is how God himself created the earth..planet etc.

In the bible days, Man was not as intelligent as today, therefore the word had to be simplified for more people to understand it.

Just what I think.

I mean, look at noah! all the animals of the earth could not have fit on that boat. BUT, the translation for the earth didnt actually mean the whole earth, it meant land. So...its a good suggestion that the earth was not actually flooded, merely a selection of land. Which scientifically, all the animals of that land area could have fit on the boat.

So, I believe that facts dont take away from the meaning of the bible...but adds a whole lot more truth to it. The miracles, visions, all that good stuff is totally real, just a matter of how we perceive it.

want to get into revelation..

I think he was seeing hellicoptors(flying scorpions I believe it was)

I could go on and on about this. I find it fascinating

Though I'm not a believer, I've no issues with the bible itself.

I can understand Christians following it as a guideline, inspiration, historical text, etc.

I just can't fathom how anyone can take it literally, because there are huge gaping holes and contradictions that arise if it is taken literally.

angel_kisses1590: Genesis 2 doesn't just restate Genesis 1, though. It offers up a completely different chronological order for creation. Genesis 1 tells the story of what God created on which of the seven days of creation, and then Genesis 2 offers the story of the creation of man and animal in a different order than what is presented in the seven days of creation. If the entire bible is literally true, that's impossible, as far as I can tell.

C.

i do agree with mara about christians about defending our faith. so for other christians to get angry about a question from the bible? thats really unchristian, i mean heaven forbid that we christians should get angry for anyone asking a question. be humble about it. if you cant answer it admit it. so what. you gotta remember god hates those with pride. so be humble.

for the first question, yes Genesis 2 goes into detail about Genesis 1. You gotta understand that, thats how the jewish wrote. they would tell whats important. and then review it and go into more detail. he never makes man or animal again. it doesnt say that it in the bible, the word "again". i mean find the verse that says or includes "again". and it is possible. your questioning about God who created man, especially the universe! so anything is possible with God. God does anything he wants.

for evolution. no, evolution did not take part of it. if you believe in evolution you might as well not read the bible.

archewing wrote: for the first question, yes Genesis 2 goes into detail about Genesis 1. You gotta understand that, thats how the jewish wrote. they would tell whats important. and then review it and go into more detail. he never makes man or animal again. it doesnt say that it in the bible, the word "again". i mean find the verse that says or includes "again". and it is possible. your questioning about God who created man, especially the universe! so anything is possible with God. God does anything he wants.

Genesis 2 offers a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER for the events of creation than what is written in Genesis 1.

If the bible is to be taken as LITERALLY TRUE, that is IMPOSSIBLE. Even for God. It is a matter of logic.

I do not believe in God, but I am willing to grant that if he exists, he could well have inspired the bible. However, the bible cannot be literally true because the events described are chronologically contradictory, which is impossible. Impossible.

For the events in Genesis 1 and 2 to be chronologically contradictory, if the bible IS inspired by God, then someone must have messed up the translation, so either way it's not literally and factually true (at least, not in the translated versions).

C.

it is still in chronological order, what would be not in order?

archewing wrote: it is still in chronological order, what would be not in order?

No, it is not. Look here:

Genesis 1

[24] And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
[25] And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GOD CREATES ANIMALS

[26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
[28] And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

GOD CREATES MAN AND WOMAN IN HIS IMAGE, to have dominion over every living thing that moveth upon the earth

With me so far?

Genesis 2


[6] But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
[7] And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

GOD CREATES MAN

[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.

GOD CREATES ANIMALS TO FIND ADAM A "HELP MEET", and he does not find one, so....

[21] And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
[22] And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
[23] And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

GOD MAKES WOMAN AFTER MAKING THE ANIMALS

In Genesis 1 God makes animals first, then makes man and woman to have dominion over said animals.

In Genesis 2 God makes man, then makes animals to find man a help meet, then makes woman to be help meet for man.

The chronological order is DIFFERENT. It is impossible for both versions to be true.

C.

from what i understand after looking it up. Genesis 2 after verse 4 goes into detail about creation on the sixth day of Genesis 1, not the entire week. check and look at this link. its long but very well explained. http://www.gotquestions.org/two-Creation-accounts.html

archewing wrote: from what i understand after looking it up. Genesis 2 after verse 4 goes into detail about creation on the sixth day of Genesis 1, not the entire week. check and look at this link. its long but very well explained. http://www.gotquestions.org/two-Creation-accounts.html

Interesting reading.

However, it's far from persuasive.

Especially this part: In verse 18 we read of God’s decision to create a woman for His man, a decision which He no doubt made long before He ever created the first man.

Any explanations that require conjecture from the (human) author as to what God must have been thinking when he wrote/inspired the passages is not logically sound. You can explain anything if you approach it from the view of Well, this is what God must've been thinking or this is what he must've meant, but 1) if God does exist, how can us mortals be so arrogant as to assume what God must've been thinking when he wrote/inspired writing? and 2) it doesn't meet the logical requirements requested in the OP.

C.

If we believe Lord Byron, then Cain married his TWIN sister... ;)