Everything is Wrong about the Biblical Creation in Genesis

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 46
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
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? 

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok if you like. You still have not offered any evidence of your claims though.
Address the op   Take you argument somewhere else

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@RationalMadman
Not only that, but God made Eve first. Women are the original being made in God's image.
This thread is about the biblical account only, Not your theories on who came first. 
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Buttered popcorn level entertainment. Lol.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Buttered popcorn level entertainment. Lol.

Lol, I agree it should be extremely entertaining watching anyone explain this great complexing, puzzling and confusing biblical anomaly.

I notice you shied away from addressing the content of the OP. 
But I wouldn't expect you to be able to. You do not have the required knowledge that is needed to answer this perplexing biblical creation story. Or to even explain it.

Leave it to some who has at least a little knowledge of the scriptures and save yourself a lot of embarrassment,eh. There's' a good lad.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Buttered popcorn level entertainment. Lol.

Lol, I agree...
I would hope so, as you seem to be the main event. I'm going to get some 7-up.

ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Buttered popcorn level entertainment. Lol.

Lol, I agree...
I would hope so, as you seem to be the main event. I'm going to get some 7-up.

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Stephen
Bible is a lie, the devil is much closer to God's real personality than Jesus is.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
So what do these three individual stories of the creation of humans all mean? 

That when humans do not have enough information to solve a puzzle they tend to start guessing.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3

Everything is Wrong about the Biblical Creation in Genesis
Obviously! It was written by an ignorant , primitive, superstitious bronze/iron age savage who knew nothing.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@secularmerlin
That when humans do not have enough information to solve a puzzle they tend to start guessing.
I agree. That is usually the case when Christians are confronted with such dilemmas. They begin to rewrite the whole bible.
I notice the resident fanatics are giving this subject a wide berth. This biblical version of the creation  story gets more bizarre the more one looks at it.
And, as with most of these scriptures  none of it simply makes no sense and does not add up on the face of it.
Example:

Read this slowly and spot the anomaly>>

Genesis 5:1-2

"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created".

And what about this strange verse:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh". <<<this is Genesis 2:24.  Can you see what is wrong with this verse concerning "Adam"?
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Ok for those who are interested, I will point out what I believe are anomalous about the two verses.


Genesis 5:1-2

"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created".

"Their name Adam", so this explains perfectly that Adam wasn't the name of a single person, it was the name of a species/ a type of being.

And what about this strange verse:

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh".<<<this is Genesis 2:24.
 I asked can any see what is wrong with this verse concerning "Adam"? Not even the devout and -proclaimed well read in scripture - Christians here wouldn't attempt this.

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother", Question then is , how would this be possible in the case of Adam who had no parents? If we was to say god was his father then we are still stuck with the absence of his mother
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
WHICH CAME FIRST, THE ADAMA OR THE CHICKEN?

Genesis1:24-27 King James Version (KJV)
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature afterhis kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind:and it was so.....26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:"

  So above then we clearly see that it was the animal kingdom that was created first.

Oh dear, have we spoke too soon?

Genesis 2:18-20 King James Version (KJV)
 :And the Lord Godsaid, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meetfor him.
19 And outof the ground the Lord Godformed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought themunto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called everyliving creature, that was the name thereof".


RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Stephen
"I'm Adam" "I'm Madam".

"Adam and Eve" "Adamant Eve."

Adam was nothing more than a nice being with a cock for Eve to use and enjoy, and his snake sure was fun to play with. Eve never got his apple stuck in her throat, she swallowed. It was an erotica and people read it as some kind of Patriarchal nonsense, it was the undeniable prowess of herself, Goddess Fiora posing as a human who was the Eve to all humans to come.

There is much to learn dearest follower of the supreme Fiora.

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother", Question then is , how would this be possible in the case of Adam who had no parents? If we were to say god was his father then we would still be stuck with the absence of his mother.
This is absolutely correct, he has only a Mother. A female can create life, a male can't. Fundamental concept in all species throughout history and to date discovered.

9 days later

Grugore
Grugore's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 167
0
1
3
Grugore's avatar
Grugore
0
1
3
-->
@Stephen
Here ya go... 



Educate yourself. Your ignorance offends me. 

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2

After reading your link twice. I found this to be the most interesting and telling part.


                                                                                                  CONCLUSION

One final but forceful point should be made. In Matthew 19:4-5, the Lord Jesus combined quotations from Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. He declared: “He who made them from the beginning made them male and female [1:26], and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh [2:24].” If the liberal viewpoint is true, how very strange that Christ should have given not the slightest hint that the two accounts involved a multiple authorship and contradictory material! Obviously, the Son of God did not endorse the modern Documentary Hypothesis.
When the texts of Genesis 1 and 2 have been considered carefully, one thing is clear: an objective evaluation reveals no discrepancies, nor is a dual authorship to be inferred. Devout students of the Bible should not be disturbed by the fanciful, ever-changing theories of the liberal critics. It is wise to remember that the Word of God was not written for the benefit of “scholars,”      but for the common person. The Scriptures assume that the average person is able to understand the message and to know that the source is divine.
but he would say that wouldn't he.

 "FOR The common person"  my hole. " the common person" couldn't even read or spell his/her own name when the bible was translated into English no more that a "common"  Muslim Pakistani  can read the quran in Arabic, today.




Your ignorance offends me.

DOES IT! hahahahhahahhahahahahhahah Get over yourself you pompous clown.

 THERE ARE TWO CREATIONS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE IT IS FACT THAT EVEN YOUR LINK DOESN'T DISPUTE.

 The excuses in your link for there being two creations are no better ot convincing than all the other excuses I have read over the years.
I have acknowledged it has to be a mistake, but if there is one mistake then there simply has to be others . This is why there are so many different excuses for there being  two written creations in the bible.