Laurens
New Member
I thought I would be cool to have a topic in which we all chip in and debunk various creationist claims. It might even prove to be a useful resource if enough people get behind it. I'll start by posting my first debunking:
Reliability of Genesis
Genesis contains two different creation stories, one in chapter one, and another in chapter two. If you go through each account and make detailed notes about the order in which events took place you will notice several major discrepancies. Are the animals created before or after humans? Is "man" the first living creature to be created or the last? Are man and woman created at the same time or at different times? Genesis chapters one and two will each provide different answers to these questions.
How can there be such major discrepancies between Genesis one and two? They belong to the same book, right? Actually, if you analyse the Hebrew text one may notice further discrepancies. The two chapters use a different name for God, and their writing styles appear different. Why would this be so? The only reasonable answer is that Genesis one and two had different authors, and the separate texts were combined at a later date.
The first chapter of Genesis is ascribed to an author mysteriously titled 'P', and it describes 'Elohim' creating the world in 6 days. The title 'P' refers to 'Priestly source' (the name of the source is unknown), and is the most recent of the proposed four major sources of the Torah, dating to around 550-400 BCE.
The second chapter of Genesis is ascribed to the J, or Jahwist narrative which describes 'Yahweh' creating the earth in a different manner. This text is much older, dating from around 950 BC.
This shows us an important fact. The Bible is not reliable. Genesis one and two cannot both be true. Man and woman cannot both be created separately and at the same time. Animals cannot come both before and after humans. Why should anybody regard the book of Genesis as the basis for any kind of science when it does not even agree with itself?
And this is not to mention the various scientific blunders of the book of Genesis. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to consider a book containing two contradictory and ancient myths to be a literal account of history.
Reliability of Genesis
Genesis contains two different creation stories, one in chapter one, and another in chapter two. If you go through each account and make detailed notes about the order in which events took place you will notice several major discrepancies. Are the animals created before or after humans? Is "man" the first living creature to be created or the last? Are man and woman created at the same time or at different times? Genesis chapters one and two will each provide different answers to these questions.
How can there be such major discrepancies between Genesis one and two? They belong to the same book, right? Actually, if you analyse the Hebrew text one may notice further discrepancies. The two chapters use a different name for God, and their writing styles appear different. Why would this be so? The only reasonable answer is that Genesis one and two had different authors, and the separate texts were combined at a later date.
The first chapter of Genesis is ascribed to an author mysteriously titled 'P', and it describes 'Elohim' creating the world in 6 days. The title 'P' refers to 'Priestly source' (the name of the source is unknown), and is the most recent of the proposed four major sources of the Torah, dating to around 550-400 BCE.
The second chapter of Genesis is ascribed to the J, or Jahwist narrative which describes 'Yahweh' creating the earth in a different manner. This text is much older, dating from around 950 BC.
This shows us an important fact. The Bible is not reliable. Genesis one and two cannot both be true. Man and woman cannot both be created separately and at the same time. Animals cannot come both before and after humans. Why should anybody regard the book of Genesis as the basis for any kind of science when it does not even agree with itself?
And this is not to mention the various scientific blunders of the book of Genesis. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to consider a book containing two contradictory and ancient myths to be a literal account of history.