@Richard_Wright1 wrote this concise comparison:
quote=“Richard_Wright1, post:231, topic:36232”]
DAY 3: Plants
DAY 5: Fish and Birds
DAY 6: Animals
DAY 6: Man
Seeing that on top of this the 2 accounts use different words for, “God” and obvious different writings styles (I would add on top of that they come from different theological perspectives), can you explain to me, Neal, how one can objectively hold that the G2 account is merely a detailed version of the 6th day from G1?
How can you seriously propose this kind of objection in view of the obvious conflicts that Genesis 1 vs. 2 has already been shown to have?
“I’m perfectly willing to concede that … we should give way to science on matters of history for the same reasons and in the same way we gave way to science on matters of science.”
“But if [we] do so on the matters in contention now, be assured that it is only a matter of time before other matters will be in contention.”
Mike, if imperfect human scribes botched up the story, wouldn’t God want us to see the flaws and find ways to show that Jesus’ role and necessary participation isn’t altered one bit!?
You conclude your apologia with this most dubious assertion:
“Ultimately, this will lead to questioning the resurrection of Christ Himself.”
Millions of sincere Christians have set aside the obvious mis-matches found in scripture.
And they never question the role of the Savior!
Instead, what we find are young people fleeing those Churches that teach inerrancy to the extent that obvious problems must be ignored, and that the eyes and ears cannot judge what is Truth.
The more tightly you squeeze a fist of sand … The more sand falls out of your grip!!