Everything is Wrong about the Biblical Creation in Genesis

Author: Stephen ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 46
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,448
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    After the first 5 days of the creation we come to day six and the creation of humans.

    Genesis 1:26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion etc etc.
     Genesis 1:27   So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
     
    It doesn’t say how they made them or from what but create them male & female, he did.
     
    So here as early as Genesis 1, we have a male and a female created in the “image” of the gods plural. Gen 1 ends at Gen31 day six with god saying “it was very good”.

    Then something extra peculiar happens. At Genesis 2:5

    "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew:for the Lord God Has not caused it to rain upon the earth, andthere was not a man to till the ground".?????

    What are we to make of this? Had he forgot that he had already made a male and female? And wasn’t the first male and female at  Genesis 1:27 created for this very purpose?
    Well we can’t say with absolute certainty because it only speaks of “dominion over” every living thing and “over all the earth”, which implies ruler ship i.e. a monarchy.
     
    So putting aside this question for now, it then continues with a verse informing us that god needed labourers “to till the land” . So a God sets about a second creation of man but giving the reader more details of how he went about creating this second human male.
     
    Genesis 2:7 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. It goes on to say he then put this man into the garden, implying that the man was actually created outside of the garden  somewhere else.

    7 verses further on  at Verse 15 it reiterates again  where he placed the man and why :
    “and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.”
     
    All was good we can take it? No, of course we can’t,because 16 verses after the creation of this second man Genesis informs us that A God then decides that because the man shouldn’t be alone without a mate/helper so he goes to a third creation of a human, this time a female. But this creation is like no other.
     
    Genesis 2:21 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 therib, 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.
     
     Any Geneticist reading this today would no doubt recognize this as nothing less of cloning/genetic engineering.
     
     
     So what do these three individual stories of the creation of humans all mean?

  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 289
    Forum posts: 8,833
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @Stephen
    Not only that, but God made Eve first. Women are the original being made in God's image. Men were made to protect and please women but God decided she was not going to let women or men have it easy so she ramped up the ante. We're and experiment, toys to her that's all but she does have favourite toys based on wisdom and effort put into staying wise and open-minded.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,928
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @RationalMadman
    Citation needed.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 289
    Forum posts: 8,833
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @secularmerlin
    I'm confused, are you asking me to prove the Bible itself said it? The Bile is full of lies.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,928
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @RationalMadman
    The bible is not an adequate citation. An example of an adequate citation would be a peer reviewed study which involves a repeatable test verifying your hypothesis.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 289
    Forum posts: 8,833
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @secularmerlin
    I'm quite confused? So if I don't have qualifications or clout I can't interpret the Bible and have it considered valid?
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,928
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @RationalMadman
    What the bible says is immaterial. I am asking for a citation which justifies your claim that 

    A) there is a god.
    B) that god created man or woman.
    C) that woman was created first.
    D) that woman was made in this hypothesis god's image.
    E) that man was created with a purpose. 
    F) that this purpose is the protection and pleasure of women.
    G) that this hypothetical god is female.
    H) that this hypothetical god is toying with or experimenting on us.

    It would be best to have a seperate citation for each of your claims but until have provided a citation of the first premise (that there is a god) there is really no reason to even consider the rest of your premises as they presuppose the first premise as correct.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 289
    Forum posts: 8,833
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @secularmerlin
    A-G all correct but H is less true, it's elite humans (or superhuman vampire-like beings) doing it to us, we're prey of prey of prey to God more like ants than anything but some of us do stand out to her.

  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,928
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @RationalMadman
    Citation needed.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 289
    Forum posts: 8,833
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @secularmerlin
    Do you mean explanation instead of citation since my theories are quite unique to me and probably very few have explored the full extent of my Pagan philosophy?
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,928
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @RationalMadman
    No I mean citation. That you are unable to provide any citation does not remove the need for citation before I could accept your claims.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 289
    Forum posts: 8,833
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @secularmerlin
    So you never think for yourself? Only if an official document says it can the idea even be one you consider?
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,928
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @RationalMadman
    I can consider any idea. I can also dismiss any claim for which there is no sufficient evidence. Scientific method is quite simply the best method we have yet discovered for separating fact from falsehood. Scientific method relies on observations of repeatable testing with reliably consistent results. The peer review process is a good method for ensuring that a given test is repeatable and has reliably consistent results.

  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 289
    Forum posts: 8,833
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @secularmerlin
    So using a scientific method of thinking and analysis please analyse what you're asking citation for instead of spamming 'citation needed'.

  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,928
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @RationalMadman
    I am asking for a citation which justifies your claim that 

    A) there is a god.
    B) that god created man or woman.
    C) that woman was created first.
    D) that woman was made in this hypothesis god's image.
    E) that man was created with a purpose. 
    F) that this purpose is the protection and pleasure of women.
    G) that this hypothetical god is female.
    H) that elite humans (or superhuman vampire-like beings) exist.
    I) that elite humans (or superhuman vampire-like beings) are toying with or experimenting on us.

    It would be best to have a seperate citation for each of your claims but until have provided a citation of the first premise (that there is a god) there is really no reason to even consider the rest of your premises as they presuppose the first premise as correct.

  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 289
    Forum posts: 8,833
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @secularmerlin
    would you like me to walk you through how to conclude them?
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,928
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @RationalMadman
    That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I would like you to either provide evidence of your assertions or retract them but I have no reason to believe that you will do either of those things based on past experience.

  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 289
    Forum posts: 8,833
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @secularmerlin
    So are you willing to watch some videos and then look into the stuff they bring up and fallacies of NASA and other organisations?
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,928
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @RationalMadman
    I have looked into the flat earth society's web site. They do not appear to rely on peer reviewed science.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 289
    Forum posts: 8,833
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @secularmerlin
    The flat earth society is run by the 'other side' please do not go to that website again, it's intentionally bullshit. They even say gravity is real there when gravity only is needed in round earth theory.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,928
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @RationalMadman
    That you dismiss gravity is not a point in your favor.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 289
    Forum posts: 8,833
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @secularmerlin
    Denser things 'fall', we are denser than air, that's the only reason we are on the ground.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,928
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @RationalMadman
    Falling is an emergent quality of gravity.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 289
    Forum posts: 8,833
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @secularmerlin
    It runs on density, the whole world and everything in it runs on density, 'gravity' is in no way at all needed to explain it but it IS NEEDED to explain space and Round-Earth.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,928
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @RationalMadman
    Well the earth is round and space is real so...