Serious question for bible based creationists
-
johnwokeefe — 10 years ago(October 14, 2015 03:57 PM)
Hi, I don't understand what you mean. You appear to agree that there are two separate histories of the same event. However, you don't address the problem of one true truth in the bible.
Could you please explain what you mean by contextualisation. This may be simple but without defining the subject that has been contextualised and without explaining the context, contextualisation is just a big word meaning nothing. -
jose-boscolo — 10 years ago(December 04, 2015 03:52 AM)
Contextualisation: setting up of a scenario?
It's just as easy to understand as it gets. Moses - Genesis' writer - explains the order in which things and creatures were made. Then, the chronological order in which man was made. Just that simple. What makes you think it gives the impression man was created first? -
johnwokeefe — 10 years ago(December 04, 2015 10:38 PM)
Contextualisation means putting something into a context. In art this is figure and ground. The central motif is placed in a background, the context. What I am asking is for you to be specific and explain what you see as the central motif and what you see as the context.
See my post from 23rd July 2015 for my reason for stating that Genesis chapter 2 says that man was created first.
Also, for the record, my Bible shows Genesis Chapter 1 Verse 27-
So God,created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
The animals were created at Verses 24 and 25.
Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2 still appear to be two separate chronological orders. Please explain how contextualisation fixes this problem. -
TheFlaneur — 10 years ago(November 26, 2015 06:19 PM)
"Inherit the Wind" is nothing but a subtle form of propaganda.
"The Scopes Monkey Trial" had nothing to do with noble science prevailing against backwards religion.
The movie utterly fails to mention that the "Scopes Monkey Trial" was all about the class room use of a book called "Civic Biology".
"Civic Biology" only mentioned evolution in order to support the book's primary aim - the advancement of eugenics.
For those who aren't familiar, as an expression of evolution, eugenics believed that with selective and restrictive breeding, humans can be approved.
Here's some quotes from "Civic Biology" -
At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally,
the highest form of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.
(Emphasis Added)
[]
If the stock of domesticated animals can be improved, it is not unfair to ask if the health and vigor of the future generations of men and women on the earth might not be improved by applying to them the laws of selection. This improvement of the future race has a number of factors in which we as individuals may play a part. These are personal hygiene, selection of healthy mates, and the betterment of the environment.
[]
If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading.
Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried success fully in Europe and are now meeting with success in this country. (Emphasis Added)
I doubt "Inherit the Wind" would be such a classic, if the contents of "Civic Biology" are known by most viewers. -
johnwokeefe — 10 years ago(December 05, 2015 03:54 AM)
Your post is interesting although irrelevant to my original post.
Nevertheless, Scopes was charged under the Butler Act, a state law. His defence was conducted with regard to his First Amendment Rights. There is a total of at least 30 seconds during Cates arrest and final sentencing devoted to the actual legal charge.
"Civic Biology" was actually an authorised school text book. I know nothing about the contents of this book but from the quotes you have provided, it appears to support the Eugenics movement which was well established in the United States in the early 20th century. That is, until it became unpopular due to its implementation in Nazi Germany and subsequent revelation in 1945. Also, Eugenics is a misinterpretation of Darwin's theories.
Typical Hollywood "based on a true story" movie which I understand to be more like "never let the truth get in the way of a good story". An interesting note though is that the Butler Act was still on the books when this movie was made. It was not repealed until 1967. -
pabra-14905 — 9 years ago(September 30, 2016 04:20 PM)
There is a fairly straight forward answer to the question of the difference between the first two chapters of Genesis. Genesis chapter 1 is a chronological broad outline of what was created and when. Genesis 2 focuses on the creation of man and woman on the 7th day and gives a rough context for their creation. Genesis 2 is not meant to be the same chronological account that Genesis 1 is.
-
rferrubbish — 9 years ago(October 04, 2016 10:28 PM)
Hi pabra-14905. It does not seem straight forward to me.
Firstly, my bible indicates that God had finished his work and rested on the 7th day. In my understanding this means nothing was created on the 7th day. So I will assume this is a typo and you meant 6th day. Please explain if this is not the case.
Secondly, you indicate that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are not meant to be the same chronological account. This is my problem, it is not an explanation.
Noting that you have overlooked the explicit differences in the creation order, my question remains, how do you understand that there are two chronologically different accounts and that they form one true non-contradictory account? -
pabra-14905 — 9 years ago(October 06, 2016 05:59 AM)
First off you're right that is a typo. God created the man and woman on the 6th day. Regarding your second point I can illustrate how a non-contradictory account can be formed but it will take some time and I'm at college so it might be a little while before I can invest that time. But I do plan to get to it when I can.
-
pabra-14905 — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 01:19 PM)
I've been looking at the early chapters of Genesis in my spare time and generally studying the matter. Genesis 1 gives specific time markers, first day, second day etc. Plants were formed on day 3 and man on day 6. We then go to Genesis 2:8-9 which appears to say that plants in general were created after man. It turns out to be in part a question of how to translate the Hebrew verbs. verse 9 reads in the King James "And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil." It would also be a legitimate translation of the Hebrew for the the first sentence to read "And out of the ground The Lord God had made to grow every tree." This means that it is referring the the past action on day 3. Verse 19 which mentions the creation of the animals follows a similar grammatical construction. Genesis 2:8 seems to in indicate that God created the Garden of Eden for man on Day 6 but generally speaking plants were created on day 3.