See that is where you give yourself too much credit.
I dont write on these forums for individuals such as yourself. I write for those who might be tricked by poor theological understanding and who have important philosophical questions that cannot be adequitely answered by TEism.
St Roymond, I am going to just this once “nicely remind you” of why i posted an IMAGE of the Encyclopedia Britannica page (which you had the audacity to call a “pseudo encyclopedia” if i recall correctly)
You made an “off the cuff claim” that the second creation account belief was 4th century A.D. However, references show that your statement ignored the knowledge of the second creation account position far earlier and which i posted from Britannica and not a YEC journal.
I dont know where you came up with your date of 4th century AD, but its clearly proven historically false by Britannica.
Let us also recognise the fact that even Britannica states that the “Priestly view” was defined by at least 4th Century BCE (not 4th century AD as you appear to claim)
In reading the last 2 lines of the the second creation account cited by Britannica in the image below, we find a citation of knowledge of it via Yahwists from about 10th Century BCE.
Now here is the really silly thing about having to even spell this out so simply for you…
When a sound reference is found that dates far earlier, that means that the original date is incorrect and that the older one is in fact more accurate. As an apparent academic surely even you know this?
Finally, I dont even agree with the Britannica claim that there are two separate creation accounts…however, i accept its dating on this topic as being factual whilst you sit in a camp that is happy to call a publication that tends to support your postiion more than mine “pseudo encyclopedia”
Incorrect.
You have a pattern of half-reading people’s posts and doubling down when you get corrected. Go back and read what I actually wrote. I cited it for you, but apparently you’d rather pursue your poor reading of what was actually in front of you.
Second time
St Roymond, I am going to just this once “nicely remind you” of why i posted an IMAGE of the Encyclopedia Britannica page (which you had the audacity to call a “pseudo encyclopedia” if i recall correctly)
You made an “off the cuff claim” that the second creation account belief was 4th century A.D. However, references show that your statement ignored the knowledge of the second creation account position far earlier and which i posted from Britannica and not a YEC journal.
I dont know where you came up with your date of 4th century AD, but its clearly proven historically false by Britannica.
Let us also recognise the fact that even Britannica states that the “Priestly view” was defined by at least 4th Century BCE (not 4th century AD as you appear to claim)
In reading the last 2 lines of the the second creation account cited by Britannica in the image below, we find a citation of knowledge of it via Yahwists from about 10th Century BCE.
Now here is the really silly thing about having to even spell this out so simply for you…
When a sound reference is found that dates far earlier, that means that the original date is incorrect and that the older one is in fact more accurate. As an apparent academic surely even you know this?
Finally, I dont even agree with the Britannica claim that there are two separate creation accounts…however, i accept its dating on this topic as being factual whilst you sit in a camp that is happy to call a publication that tends to support your postiion more than mine “pseudo encyclopedia”
No, I did not. Since I stated clearly what the fourth century reference was about, then reminded you what it was about, and then cited my original statement, there is no way you could not know that the reference was to a scholarly debate.
Since you are apparently purposely ignoring what I actually wrote, I will do your homework for you and quote it–
I put in bold the only possible antecedent to my statement.
I doubt anyone here has used that phrase – seems to me you’re just making stuff up again.
Actually somebody did. It was Adam back in his post #38.
That does presume at least a couple of things which might not be so and for which we actually have significant evidence that indeed they are not. It would not be politically correct to specify details however. 
So he’s accusing me of something he did. Ah, well.
No St Roymond, I am stating that either your maths is crap or you intentionally mislead with your claim about this…the view of this fromYahwist tradition existed far earlier.
You do not do your research and you keep posting apparent scholarly knowledge without referencing. People believe you and are being lead astray with apparent knowledge that is not even historically accurate!
Again my reference that completely discredits your claim is below:
According to the lengthier Yahwist (J) narrative of the 10th century bce (Genesis 2:5–7, 2:15–4:1, 4 Adam and Eve | Story, Meaning, & Facts | Britannica
It makes no difference whether or not you want to bark up trees…debating my opinion. 10TH CENTURY BCE is factual and your claim of 4th century A.D is ignorant of the Yahwist evidence.
Why is it that you insist on doubling on making false assertions about what people have written here? You are arguing against something that I not only didn’t say, but have pointed out at least three times now that I didn’t say it, and actually posted the quote that shows I didn’t say it.
I’ll try again – here is what I actually said:
Are you reading it this time? The topic was the debate over which Creation account Genesis 2:4 belongs to – I put it in bold above so you don’t skip it. I didn’t say anything about when any text was written.
So please stop posting things that you made up (including calling some a “pseudo encyclopedia”, which you were the first to do), as shown in the preceding posts.
First, you are aware, I hope, that the division of the Bible into chapters and verses is a recent addition to the text. Don’t ask me for examples, but I believe there are many cases where the division is considered incorrect.
Second, the debate that St. Roymond is referring to is where does Genesis 2:4 belong. It could be considered the ending of the first creation account or the beginning of the second. It is this debate that
Third, do you have a problem with admitting you made a mistake? We are all human after all.
do you honestly think someone with the theological knowledge i clearly have doesnt know this?
Now my problem with St Roymond is that if we continually use stuff off the top of our heads… in this case his timeline is out by more than 1,400 years!
If you are going to ignore Old Testament history, because its too hard for your scientific world view St Roymond, at least make sure your dating is accurate and that your research is also accurate.
Resorting to “at least 4th century” is ridiculous…its out by 1400 years.
The real evidence (from Encyclopedia Britannica) tells us 10th Century BCE not 400 A.D!
One needs to sort out the referencing here so that your claims are at least trustworthy and within reasonable timeframes…1400 years is a heck of a long time historically and a long way off the mark! You have intentionally only focused on a more modern A.D reference because you simply cannot bring yourself to agree that the Old Testament timelines are historically accurate. I have cited a claim that supports your view on this topic that shoots your own theology in the ass on the historicity of Old Testament timelines!
I am not seeking a “St Roymond must admit his mistake apology here”, that isnt the point. The point is, if he is wrong about this (by a huge margin), then because of his absolute dependence on refusing to agree that the Old Testament is historically accurate, what else is he wrong on given he rarely references his claims on this forum? That is my problem…if we dont reference, our arguments are not credible.
I screw up more than i would like on these forums, however, it is never intentional in that Im trying to hide something that is problematic for my own theology. However this particular issue is very problematic for St Roymonds theology. It goes to the very heart of why his theology is problematic and ( i claim) mostly wrong.
So the 2-creation account argument using the original claim St Roymond made is a non starter.
Anyway, i agree…my point has been made, St Roymond has responded…i think his response is typically avoiding the problem with his rationale there, but i accept his answer and will move on if that is ok.
Given the lack of reading comprehension you are exhibiting I had to wonder exactly how much you do know.
You appear to have problems separating the DEBATE about the two creation stories, which has been ongoing since the 4th century, and the DATING of when the creation stories were written. This has been pointed out several times to you and yet here you are still misunderstanding.
You really do like throwing out lies, don’t you? I corrected your misreading of my post at least three times yet you persist in doubling down on what by now you darned well know is a falsehood.
What scientific worldview? This is another lie of yours that I have corrected a number of times: the only thing I care about in terms of science is that people get it right; it has no bearing on dealing with the text. EC and YEC both use science to interpret scripture, the only difference being that EC tries to get the science right while YEC tries to force it to fit a preconceived notion about the scriptures.
No, at this point the point is that you continue to lie about what I wrote even after being corrected multiple times, just as you lie about others though you have been corrected. This is highly disrespectful not just to all of us whom you lie about, it is disrespectful to yourself and spiritually dangerous.
In the debate concerning whether Genesis 2:4 belongs to the first creation story or the second, I prefer the NRSV translation:
These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
The first sentence is the conclusion of the first creation story (as indicated by “the heavens and the earth”), and the phrase ending the verse is the beginning of the second creation story (as indicated by “the earth and the heavens”).
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.