Aielyn said:
|
"Named them"? What do you mean? In Genesis 1, he created light on the first day. He created the sources of light - the "lights in the sky" - on the third day. But here's some more fun - it says that evening and morning occurred, and then it was the third day... and only then did lights get created in the sky. So how does evening and morning exist without a sun? First off God can do whatever he wants, because he is God. With that said, God named them so that we could understand what he meant by light, and in the same way so we could understand what a day is, and so we could understand how time passes, etc. But that’s only for our benefit; for God did not have to later call the light Sun or Moon or make the distinction, but it was in his plan to do so. So that’s why a day is not measured in two, three or even half day, because God said what a day is and humans adopted it. Same reason why your week only has 7 days, because God said it does. Genesis is there to put things into context and not to scientifically or holistically explain any and every element of creation.
From Genesis 1: "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."" - so man was made to rule over the creatures that move along the ground. This says that animals were already there, and god specifically made man to rule over them.
From Genesis 2: "Then the LORD God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.' So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name." - so man was made first, and then given animals after that. Note that sometimes the excuse is inserted that the correct phrasing is "God HAD formed every animal", making it past-tense... but it doesn't explain why man was alone first. But even if it wasn't true that animals were made later, it doesn't explain the inconsistency with regards to purpose. In Genesis 1, man is made with the specific purpose of ruling over animals. In Genesis 2, man is made separately, and then god decides that animals should help him. Whether you consider the creation order to be an issue or not, there's still an issue with god's purpose. Genesis 1 details Creation, while Genesis 2 details The Fall of Man, they then have some Overlap. There is no contradiction. If you want to know when Man, the Animals, the Rocks, etc were CREATED, then check Genesis 1, but if you want to know how the fall of man happened check Genesis 2. You are essentially asking Genesis 2 to explain Creation, which is like asking John 1 to explain the same. Yes John 1 talks about “In the beginning…” but it does not seek to explain Creation, and thus whatever it says is simply a short SUMMARY or RETELLING of Creation not an EXPLANATION! John 1 also theorises that Jesus was there in the BEGINNING, but you have no record of this in Genesis 1, because Jesus is not a Creation.
Jesus is not called Emmanuel or God With Us once in the bible. He is only ever called Jesus. Note that the prophecy wasn't that "He will be Emmanuel", but that "He will be called Emmanuel". Nobody called him that. Not once. By the way, "Immanuel" is a bad romanisation (actually, so is Jesus - Yeshua is a much more accurate way to write his name). I think you’re getting hung up on something insignificant. The name Emmanuel (or whatever) meant something, and the Jews we not looking for someone with a particular name but for someone who was actually God in human form. I am sure there were lots of people called Emmanuel in those days, much in the same way there were many people called Jesus. The name meant nothing, essentially, but who he really was, i.e. God in human form, is what is important. So when the prophet said he will be called Emmanuel it meant that they/the Jews should be looking for someone who was God in human form dwelling among them, not some dude named Emmanuel.
When I refer to Jesus's last words, I'm referring to the literal last words. Two accounts are given of the moment of his death. In both accounts, he dies immediately after saying the last words, so it wasn't just "who was there for each of the things he said". Luke and John both provide accounts. Have a look. First off, Luke was not at the Cross when Jesus died, and I’m almost sure John wasn’t there either. They got there information from people like Jesus’ mother who witnessed the events of Jesus’ life and death.
Mark, Matthew, and Luke all say that Simon of Cyrene carried the cross. John, on the other hand, says that Jesus himself carried his cross. They can't both be true. As I said before, John was probably not there at the Crucifixion, rather I think it is the case that some parts of John’s account of the Bible were heard from Jesus’ Mother. That is why you can find the story of Jesus’ FIRST miracle of turning water into wine in John’s gospel and no other, because Jesus and his Mother were invited to the event early on before Jesus had selected all his disciples. We also know Jesus was closer to John more than any of the other disciple, so naturally he would have been close to Jesus’ Mother as well. So again, there were many people that witnessed the life and death of Jesus and would give you different, but not necessarily contradictory accounts of things that happened. So for example (1) Jesus was crucified, and (2) Jesus was crucified with two others, are different but not contradictory accounts.
Do you claim to be Christian? If you do, how can you not know your holy book, cover to cover? Now, I'm not a christian, and can't claim to know perfectly, but my understanding is that Josiah was a king of Assyria, killed by Pharoah Neco of Egypt. Two accounts are given - in 2 Kings, he was killed at Megiddo and his dead body was carried back to Jerusalem. In 2 Chronicles, he was merely mortally wounded at Megiddo, and commanded his servants to take him back to Jerusalem - he died in Jerusalem. Yes, I’m a Christian and the most fun part about the Bible I find is knowing that there is an infinite amount of things I still don’t know about the Bible and what is written therein. For how can a book written so long ago be so relevant today? Anyways, I don’t think I have every really ready the book of Chronicles, so I really can’t provide any input.
God didn't say "your only legitimate son Isaac", he said "your only son Isaac". I doubt that god is really so careless with his words that he would say something that is wrong, irrespective of whether he considers the other son "legitimate". Well you seem to know the story, so I guess so far as God is concerned he/God only gave Abraham one Son/Isaac, so Abraham only had one son, for God’s ultimate purpose. I believe however that the story goes on to say that God told Abraham not worry about Ishmael and his Mother as they would be cared for – no?
Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren
I love My Wii U, and the potential it brings to gaming.
