Genesis 2:19

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Ray:
This response by Turkrel is schoolboyish nonsense. There is nothing to his
arguments but hot air. Just as a for instance, he opens by claiming he will
show it is liely that G1 and G2 were written by the same person and never
even addresses the facts that point to its being from two sources, something
that essentially every biblical scholar accepts. He first claims that G2 is
not rally a creation account and then thinks that because he can come up
with an outline/subject listing that he think fits both stories this proves
they were written by the same author!

POOBAH
Turkel's argument seems to hinge on a lawyerly reading of the text that
involves "plants of the earth" meaning something different than "plants of
the field," and the fact that cattle aren't specifically mentioned as
created in Gen2:18-20, but are brought before Adam which indicates that Gen2
isn't really a creation account. *shrug*.

[Crass generalizations to follow]
My experience is that one approach inerrantists take in dealing with
potential contradictions is to come up with a solution, ANY solution, and
consider their job done. Typically little or no consideration is given to
counter-arguments, and the relative probability of the competing arguments
is rarely considered. The conclusion one seems to hear is, "Well you can
either look at it my way or your way, but since you're a skeptic you have a
bias that prevents you from seeing it my way."

Which, if nothing else, is a good defense mechanism to avoid cognitive
dissonance.

(If my generalizations are incorrect, I would be genuinely happy to be
corrected).

As you noted, Turkel does nothing to refute the facts that point to two
sources, and makes no mention of the weight of scholarly opinion that
disagrees with him. In my opinion, this either shows ignorance or
dishonesty, but I don't know which. Of course, there may be another
explanation, and I would be happy to hear it. His ad hominem attacks against
"Till-thralls" might have some merit if the two-text reading of Genesis was
something that this group came up with on its own, but as it stands, it just
seems like a childish attack to me (I should know after my "Force" posts).

I think we've taken this issue as far as it will take us; as far as I'm
concerned the readers can decide where the weight of evidence rests.

What topic will you tackle next, Mr. Carter? I for one am interested in the
specific question of how if the worldwide Flood didn't happen how the Bible
can be inerrant, and as a general topic how a book with errors (such as the
previous) can be considered inerrant, and how that text can then be
distinguished from other obviously errant texts like, say, the Book of
Mormon or the Koran (my apologies to those that consider those books to be
inerrant).

I have synthesized two different statements by Jason Carter, but I don't
think I have misconstrued your position, have I, Mr. Carter?

Dates for the plague would be another good one, a rational harmonization of
the contradictions found in Matthew over whether only Christians can cast
out demons in Jesus name or not would be another, the a priori criteria you
use to determine which NT commands are applicable to all Christians and
which were directed to specific individuals or groups would be yet another.

BTW, I haven't yet received any information on those "Christian computer
simulations" that you saw with your own eyes that disprove the results of
other simulations involving genetic algorithms and those that mimic young
earth conditions. As a dabbler in the field, I am honestly interested. If
you are too busy to provide the information, could you drop me a quick line
saying so, and when you might have time to get to it?

• Previous message: Resurrection (Alward rebuts Carter)
• Next message: Genesis 2:19
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]