Fowl Play!
Today we deal with the following objections from the SAB under the contradictions category:
There is no problem in reconciling these two accounts. The waters bringing forth the fowl in Gen.1:20-21 says nothing about what the fowl (or the sea creatures for that matter) were actually made out of, but that they came forth from the waters. Similarly, Gen.2:19 says nothing about which part of the ground was used to form the beasts of the field and fowls of the air. The most obvious conclusion to draw from this is that God made the fowl using ground (i.e. earth or soil) from the ocean bed. Why He did this we do not know.
This explanation agrees perfectly with both accounts - they were brought forth by the water, and were formed out of the ground, and dissolves the apparent contradiction.
Let the SAB jump through hoops and do what they can to argue otherwise.
Next we will be dealing with some strange interpretations of what the Beasts of the Earth are.
Bye for now.
Today we deal with the following objections from the SAB under the contradictions category:
From the waters. | From the ground. |
---|---|
|
|
There is no problem in reconciling these two accounts. The waters bringing forth the fowl in Gen.1:20-21 says nothing about what the fowl (or the sea creatures for that matter) were actually made out of, but that they came forth from the waters. Similarly, Gen.2:19 says nothing about which part of the ground was used to form the beasts of the field and fowls of the air. The most obvious conclusion to draw from this is that God made the fowl using ground (i.e. earth or soil) from the ocean bed. Why He did this we do not know.
This explanation agrees perfectly with both accounts - they were brought forth by the water, and were formed out of the ground, and dissolves the apparent contradiction.
Let the SAB jump through hoops and do what they can to argue otherwise.
Next we will be dealing with some strange interpretations of what the Beasts of the Earth are.
Bye for now.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home