And as a final thumper.
It is his worldview, not ours! This is not my subjective belief, it is a textual demonstration, which you continuously refuse to listen to! How does all of that relate to what I said?
I came across this article that gives a slant that the Genesis actually resemble the Egyptian creation myths more so then the Babylonian. Although I know Job and Psalms seems to give a Babylonian slant. I would be interested in your take on this article. You may want to read chapter five of Jon D. You speak of science, it never even entered your minds that science itself is the betrayer of mankind. Our wisdom is foolishness to the Most High, and so it proves to be. The earth is flat and stationary under a solid firmament, stars are lights and planets simply do not exist, the sun and moon circle right above our heads, Genesis is absolutely correct.
I appreciate your enthusiasm and your contribution, but there is really nothing here in your comments that has any textual support, and in fact a strong case for the opposite can be made. It is the text of the Bible that bears witness to all of this. In other words, this has nothing to do with the subjective whims or interpretive frameworks imposed upon these ancient texts by modern readers.
I am not engaged in that sort of activity, nor scholarship; rather, a corpus of ancient literature is my object of study and like any object of study what it is and conversely is not is not dependent on me, but on the observable data gleaned from our object of study and the conclusion they lead us to draw about the nature of these ancient texts. And it is the text itself that reveals that it is indeed a composite of two different, and contradictory, stories, messages, Hebrew style and vocabulary, worldviews, etc. The evidence can be found in the series of posts listed here.
Studying the biblical texts on their terms and from within their own historical and literary contexts would easily refute such ephemeral theologized claims. Indeed, one of the things I let the texts of Genesis 1 and 2 put out to its modern readers in my recently published, Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate , is that the texts themselves reveal that their messages and perception about the nature of the world and its origins were shaped by subjective and culturally shaped beliefs and experiences about the world that our ancient scribes had.
The text informs us this, as does any literary work or even art work would. They are expressions of their authors and cultures. Again, this is not a subjective belief I hold; rather, this is what the texts themselves tells us when we enter into their worldview and on their terms. Additionally, I might remind you that while knowing nothing about the content of these texts, their authors and their messages , to who they were writing, why, to address what historical concerns, in relation to what other literary works, employing what types of literary conventions, etc.
- Book of Genesis - Wikipedia.
- Exodus 8: Frogs Everywhere!?
- The Poisoned Chalice: Eucharistic Grape Juice and Common-Sense Realism in Victorian Methodism (Religion & American Culture).
- 2. The Heart Constantly Gets Harder.
It places you in a precarious situation and puts you at a gross disadvantage when saying anything about these ancient texts, and frankly presents any claims you make about this texts as a bit audacious. Take the time to read through the posts in this series. This series of posts also puts forward some of the textual data Hebrew linguistics, style, thematic and theological emphasis, competing worldviews, etc.
And quite frankly this is what ancient literature did. For a fuller treatment of the textual data that reveals that Genesis 1 and Genesis were written by different scribes, with competing messages and even worldviews, and at different times periods, by different social groups, and to address different historical audiences, etc. It is interesting to note that this style of writing continued on through the NT with the differences of the Gospels and as well the differences when reading the works attributed to Paul. The Bible is a different text from the others.
So, some of your deductions are even dishonest to what you claim.. You, on the contrary, are clearly more interested in spouting your message. You seem to treat these texts as some sort of free-for-all with little interest in or study of the text itself, its author, and his beliefs, worldview, and message, since your comment is devoid of textually substantiated views and on the contrary laden with centuries-later subjective beliefs about the text. Again such terms reveal your assumptions —assumptions about the text and about my approach to the texts.
Both are in error! Drop the assumptions, and work with the text on the points discussed in the above cited posts. First of all you need to understand, Theology has no place in me… So, relegating my comments or me to theology is just farcical.. I only called out a name for your movement..
This was the reason why I said you were not a Christian as your brief biography spelled.. It is best to let God teach you himself if you have the capacity to bear him!! These are not only assumptions, but they reveal YOUR own attitudes , experiences, etc. It represents you; none of that speaks to me, my past, nor my situation, ever! Rather, my plea, as it has been from the get go is: stop throwing assumptions out, about me, about these texts, about whatever else, and take up the task at hand—grappling with these ancient texts on their terms —not yours nor the terms of your assumptions!
Why remain in the dark and throw darts at the board? The answers you seek are right in the text! They are rather my object of study. What they are—here I am repeating myself again, and again, to an audience that just fails to read and comprehend at a basic SAT level—comes from them. If I were an astrophysicist whose object of study was the moon, then what the compositional nature of the moon was AND WAS NOT, would not come from my assumptions about the moon or what other people have thought about the moon, but from the object of study itself, the moon! Same thing here.
- PUBLICATION TITLE:.
- T*Witches 3: Seeing Is Deceiving.
- Genesis' Two Creation Accounts?
- Icebox Stories: Tales to give you the chills.
The fact is borne out from the texts themselves. Studying the Hebrew, stylistic, linguistic, thematic, and ideological data of the text itself reveals its compositional nature to me. You, being a non-expert in this field of study, would be better to ask: hmm…. I talk about all of this in the conclusion to my book, granted on a much more sympathetic level—sympathetic to the beliefs that Christians hold about these texts, even though the texts themselves on their terms refute or challenge these traditionally reader-created beliefs.
Again, rather than throwing out another fallacious assumption about me or the texts, try reading. If you you want to know how I approach these ancient texts without assumptions and without preformed beliefs, read:. Genesis b — Observing Thematic and Stylistic Differences. By debating incorrect interpretations of marginal pseudo Christian cults, Flat earthers , you are no longer maintaining an honest assessment of the original text of scripture. Although, I do agree that the first chapter of Genesis was written by a different author than the subsequent chapters. Genesis 1 is describing the creation of heaven and earth and the days and nights are not 24 hours but unspecified times.
Genesis 2 is about a regional creation, that of the garden within the Tigris-Euphrates region. There is way too much detail and textual support indicating two authors with different messages to address here, but in passing I might retort that you have grossly and negligently just annihilated the author of Genesis 1 a 5th c.
You see? This would certainly be inline with fundamentalism as a whole: reject empirical evidence; treat fabrications as facts so long as they support the mythos. I have over 50, words on this site exemplifying that statement, and instead of reading those words all you can do is misread 7 words?
I ponder often at the state of education, or lack therefore, in our country. Our goal is never to glibly believe what they believe. Skip to content About Me What is the Bible? My goals in the 13 posts that follow are threefold: To put forward the textual data that convincingly demonstrate the hand of two different authors for Genesis and b We must let the text speak on its own terms! To demonstrate through the texts themselves that the depiction of the creation of the world and of mankind in both these accounts were conditioned and shaped by subjective and culturally formed beliefs and ideas about the nature of the world as perceived by ancient Near Eastern peoples, the Israelites included.
They are not, in other words, divinely dictated, divinely inspired, or objective descriptions. This is not my subjective belief. Rather these are the claims that the texts make and reveal when read on their terms and from within their historical and literary contexts. Again, our goal is to let the text invite us into its world with an aim to understand it, even become fascinated by it, not to impose ours or our understanding and experience of the world on it, and to interpret away his beliefs for the sake of safeguarding ours!
It will be shown that they feign belief in this ancient text due to their ignorance about what the text actually says and does not say, the beliefs and messages of their authors, the historical and literary contexts of these texts, their audiences, and the larger cultural perspectives, beliefs, and worldviews of the ancient Near East that shaped these texts and the beliefs and views of their authors.
Genesis and b An Overview Ancient and modern readers alike have long recognized the differences between the seven-day creation account of Genesis and the garden of Eden account of Genesis b This practice, which is misleading as well as misrepresentative of the Hebrew text, follows a late Judaic oral tradition of substituting the Hebrew adonai lord for yhwh in the reading of the Torah, since later Judaism—centuries after these texts were actually composed—conceived the name as sacred and unspeakable.
Modern translation practices have regrettably chosen to follow this later oral tradition rather than the actual Hebrew text! Here, we will be as honest to the Hebrew texts as possible. See also Is where yatsar is used to describe the act of forming man from clay, like a potter does. Next Genesis — Not a Creation ex nihilo! Gen [P] vs Gen [J] Even within the J narrative, I think that a case can be made for another contradiction: Is only one tree forbidden as food Genesis , or was a second tree also prohibited Genesis ?
Apologies for the length of that, it looked shorter when I was typing it. Match point. Your serve. It deals with the idea of the prophecy of Christ Really? You all belong to the same pagan faith, science fiction, the Most High will have the last laugh. Gideon, I appreciate your enthusiasm and your contribution, but there is really nothing here in your comments that has any textual support, and in fact a strong case for the opposite can be made. Leave a Reply Cancel reply. The major retinal photo pigment changes from porphyropsin to rhodopsin. Tadpoles like most fish excrete ammonia, whereas adult frogs change to a urea-based system that uses less water.
Weston, P. Helpful Resources. Exploring the World of Biology. In the Beginning was Information. GB May 5th, I believe in creation, but your article could be interpreted for evolution Not in one lifetime as we understand time of course. A frog's lifetime is shorter and faster in those terms. Warren Nunn May 7th, You say "could have" but, of course, in Genesis God tells us what he did do. On Day 6, after creating the land animals, He made Adam. That means that before Adam was created, creatures such as the frog kind and the ape kind had already been created complete with their DNA so they could reproduce after their kind.
And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.
John B. GB April 26th, Once again, evolution is made to be seen for the nonsense that it is! Metamorphosis is incredibly complex and another prime example of it is seen in the butterfly. From egg to caterpillar to chrysalis to butterfly! How does that soup that was caterpillar turn into an incredibly beautiful butterfly inside that chrysalis?
How does it know how to rearrange itself, all those billions of molecules? Who programmed this miracle of every day nature we take for granted? The message of the Bible is that Jesus Christ stands ready to remove those frogs—to take away your uncertainties and fears; to forgive your sins; and to offer complete pardon.
A Trivial Devotion: Lot: A Slow Boiled Frog (Genesis )
He will give you an abundant life here, and an eternal life with God the Father in the world to come. There are at least four reasons why you should not say tomorrow, and why you should not choose like Pharaoh did to spend one more night with the frogs. One thing sure—the day of grace is still open for each one reading this message.
The Saviour pleads with men to come to Him now.
Don’t Be like the Frog
The gates of Heaven are open now. The Spirit of God seeks men who are lost, and convicts them, and warns them, and strives with them, in order that they might be saved. He may not call tomorrow. This implies that the Spirit of God may not always call. Aaron Burr was the third vice-president of the United States. He was a brilliant student at Princeton University at age nineteen.
A revival broke out on campus in those days, and Aaron was deeply convicted. He went to one of his teachers, and told him his dilemma. The teacher gave him a Bible, and told him to go back to his room, and settle the matter with God on his knees. Aaron tried to shake off the conviction. Years later, a good friend tried to introduce him to the Saviour—but the cold sweat poured out of his forehead, as he recounted to his friend how at the age of nineteen he had asked God to let him alone.
So many have the idea that they can get saved whenever they get ready. The first reason why you should not choose to spend one more night with the frogs, is because the Holy Spirit calls today, and if you trifle with the call of the Spirit, He may never strive with you again. The heart of every man and woman and boy and girl, becomes more and more hardened, every time he puts off the Gospel invitation.
The hardening of the heart is one of the most terrible calamities that can come upon a lost sinner, on this side of eternal destruction in Hell. One reason why the great majority of those who are saved, have been saved in childhood and youth—is simply because the child has the advantage of a tender heart. But one who continues in sin, and ignores the call of the Spirit of God, will find that his heart becomes calloused and hardened and accustomed to sin.
Every brazen infidel was once a tender-hearted child, who may have trembled at the very thought of his sin and judgment—but delay over the years has hardened his heart. Every drunkard was once a pure and innocent child, likely beloved of his parents, and promising for the future. Every painted prostitute was once a sweet-faced little girl precious and gentle , with holy possibilities—but now the passing days of unrebuked sin in her life, have led to an indifference about holy matters. Oh the danger of a hardened heart! That innocent little child, born into the world with bright eyes, happy smiles, and a sweet disposition—gradually becomes hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
Five-sixths of all decisions for Christ are made before twenty; eleven-twelfths of all decisions are made before the age of twenty-five; and only one out of a thousand becomes a child of God after the age of thirty. God can save regardless of age. If you are a hardened sinner, a drunkard in the gutter, a prostitute, an infidel—whatever your condition—Jesus died for you. There is a new life of joy awaiting you but you have to give Him the consent of your will. If He is calling you today, why spend one more night with the frogs?