Two Authors--Two Creation Stories [Archive]

Joseph Alward

February 28th 2003, 03:18 AM

JOE ALWARD
I believe there are two different—and contradictory—stories of creation in the first two chapters of Genesis. In the first creation story, which is found in the first 34 verses of the Bible (Genesis 1:1-2:3), the animals came first, then man. However, in the second creation story, which is in the next 22 verses (Genesis 2:4-25), the writer explains that man came first, and that God then made animals because man was alone.

The apparent reason for the contradiction is that were two different authors from two different cultures with different beliefs about what the deity should be called and the order of creation of man and animals. In the first writer's world, the deity was apparently called "God," and they believed that animals were created before man, while the other culture called the deity "Lord God" and believed that animals were created after man to relieve his loneliness. Here is the evidence:

First Creation Story: Genesis 1:1-2:3

As you read first creation story, note that the first author refers to the deity as "God" thirty times in a row, and not once does he call him by a different name:

1 In the beginning God…and the Spirit of God …3 And God said, 4 God saw…God called... 6 And God said, …7 So God made…8 God called …9 And God said…10 God …And God saw …11 Then God said…And God saw …14 And God said, …16 God made... 17 God set them…And God saw …20 And God said, …21 So God …And God saw …22 God …24 And God said…. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds..And God …26 Then God said, "Let us make …27 So God…28 God …29 Then God said, …31 God saw …God had …3 And God blessed the seventh day.

Second Creation Story: Genesis 2:4-25

Note that SUDDENLY, beginning at the very spot where the creation story begins again, another writer starts calling the deity "Lord God," and does so nine times in a row, without ever referring to him by another name:

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God… LORD God had not …7 the LORD God formed the man …8 Now the LORD God …And the LORD God made …15 The LORD God took …16 And the LORD God commanded …18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field …the LORD God …the LORD God.

It cannot be a coincidence, can it? How could it be that at the very place where writer seems to start his creation story all over again that he also decided to abandon the deity's name that he had used thirty times in a row, and suddenly start calling him by a different name, never again using the name he first used?

Isn't it much more likely that the reason for the discrepancy in the creation order is that there were two different authors, one who called the deity "God, " and another who called him "Lord God"?

(Interested readers may wish to see my argument that the story of the flood is actually two different contradictory stories, from two different authors, woven together. It may be found at http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Two_Flood_Stories.htm.)

Jaltus

March 1st 2003, 07:30 PM

Or, it could be that when God is personal He is called Lord God, and when He is not, He is called God. Because, after all, one can only be Lord if it is in fact OVER someone or something.

In any event, your theory quite easily breaks down in later chapters. It also neglectws two important questions:

1) Why did the alleged editor combine the two stories into the same book knowing they were contradictory?

2) Why did the early Jews think they were NOT contradictory?

Oh, as for the animals being created after Adam, you may want to reread Genesis 2, for you are completely wrong. All of them are just set in the past tense, with no way to know which came first. Hence the NIV rendering:

Gen 2:19
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

Note it is a past perfect tense (pluperfect) indicating a completed action in past time. It does not say WHEN it happened with respect to man's creation.

Joseph Alward

March 2nd 2003, 12:50 AM

JALTUS
Or, it could be that when God is personal He is called Lord God, and when He is not, He is called God. Because, after all, one can only be Lord if it is in fact OVER someone or something.

In any event, your theory quite easily breaks down in later chapters. It also neglects two important questions:

1) Why did the alleged editor combine the two stories into the same book knowing they were contradictory?

2) Why did the early Jews think they were NOT contradictory?

Oh, as for the animals being created after Adam, you may want to reread Genesis 2, for you are completely wrong. All of them are just set in the past tense, with no way to know which came first. Hence the NIV rendering:

Gen 2:19
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

Note it is a past perfect tense (pluperfect) indicating a completed action in past time. It does not say WHEN it happened with respect to man's creation.

JOE ALWARD

Lording over the People

They didn't call the creator "LORD God" whenever he lorded over people, Jaltus. The word "LORD" is just the traditional way of translating into English the actual word used: Jehovah. Thus, the Hebrews called the deity "Jehovah Elohiym." We wouldn't say that the creator was called "Jehovah" whenever he "Jehovahed" over people, so your "lording over" argument is not sound, in my opinion.

Why Did the Editor Include Contradictory Stories?

This question assumes that the editor expected his readers to take the creation stories to be literally true. All the editor was doing, it seems, was treating with respect the different beliefs about creation held by different cultures at different times.

And why didn't the early Jews not think the stories were contradictory? This question also assumes that the early Jews thought the stories were literally true. Where is the evidence of that?

The Lord God Had Formed the Beasts

Jaltus, you overlook the key word—"alone"-- in Genesis 2 that makes it clear that the writer expects us to understand that Lord God had created the animals after he created man: Lord God noted that man was ALONE, and that this was not good. To attempt to remedy this, Lord God created the animals. Here is the evidence:

7 The LORD God formed the man…The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the…But for Adam no suitable helper was found (Genesis 2:7-22)

Thus, the evidence clearly shows that the Genesis 2 writer thought that animals were created AFTER Lord God had determined that it wasn't good for man to be alone, so he created potential helpers (the animals), but Adam found these helpers were unsuitable.

Lord God created the animals to relieve loneliness that Adam already felt. Few things in Genesis 2 could be clearer than that animals were created AFTER Lord God made man, and that they were created to relieve his loneliness.

The creation order in Genesis 2 contradicts the one given in Genesis 1. The reason for this contradiction is clear: The stories were written by two different people from different traditions. The first writer believed that man was created second and that the creator was called "God," while the second writer believed that man was created first and that the creator was called "Lord God."

The Renaming Problem

Also not addressed by you, Jaltus, is the matter of the renaming. Do you not think it would be very unusual for a single writer to call the creator by only one name (God) thirty-one times in a row, and then, at the very place where--according to the apologist--the writer then recapitulates the creation story, he abruptly switches to a new name? Why would a single writer suddenly drop the name he had used thirty-one times, and switch to a different name, which he then used eleven times, and never used again the name he used before? Don't you believe that the more sensible explanation is that there were two authors? Especially since it seems almost perfectly clear that the animals were created after man in order to relieve his loneliness, and thus the two accounts are contradictory?

Ric

March 2nd 2003, 12:58 AM

Genesis 2 does not present a creation account at all but presupposes the completion of God's work of creation as set forth in chapter 1. The first three verses of Genesis 2 simply carry the narrative of chapter 1 to its final and logical conclusion, using the same vocabulary and style as employed in the previous chapter. It sets froth the completion of the whole primal work of creation and the special sanctity conferred on the seventh day as a symbol and memorial of God's creative work. Verse 4 then sums up the whole sequence that has just been surveyed by saying, "These are the generations of heaven and earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made heaven and earth."

Having finished the overall survey of the subject, the author then develops in detail one important feature that has already been mentioned: the creation of man. Kenneth Kitchen says,

"Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the center of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism" (Ancient Orient, p. 117).

Kitchen then draws on the analogy of Egyptian inscriptions like the Karnak Poetical Stela of Thutmose III, the Gebel Barkal Stela, and those royal inscriptions from Urartu that ascribe the defeat of the nation's foes to their patron god, Haldi, and then repeat the same victories in detail as achieved by the reigning king of Urartu. Kitchen then adds,

"What is absurd when applied to monumental Near Eastern texts that had no prehistory of hands and redactors should not be imposed on Genesis 1 and 2, as is done by uncritical perpetuation of a nineteenth-century systematization of speculations by eighteenth-century dilettantes lacking, as they did, all knowledge of the forms and usages of Ancient Oriental literature" (ibid.).

As we examine the remainder of Genesis 2, we find that it concerns itself with a description of the ideal setting that God prepared for Adam and Eve to begin their life in, walking in loving fellowship with Him as responsive and obedient children. Verses 5-6 describe the original condition of the "earth," or "land," in the general region of the Garden of Eden before it had sprouted verdure under the special watering system the Lord used for its development. Verse 7 introduces Adam as a newly fashioned occupant for whom Eden was prepared. Verse 8 records how he was placed there to observe and enjoy the beauty and richness of his surroundings. Gen. 2:9-14 describe the various kinds of trees and the lush vegetation sustained by the abundant waters of the rivers that flowed out of Eden to the lower regions beyond its borders. Verse 15 indicates the absorbing activity that Adam had assigned to him as keeper and warden of this great natural preserve.

From the survey of the first fifteen verses of chapter 2, it becomes quite apparent that this was never intended to be a general creation narrative. Search all the cosmogonies of the ancient civilizations of the Near East, and you will never find among them a single creation account that omits all mention of the formation of sun, moon, and stars or ocean or seas--non of which are referred to in Genesis 2. It is therefore quite obvious that Genesis 1 is the only creation account to be found in the Hebrew Scripture and that it is already presupposed as the background of Genesis 2. Even the animals are not referred to until Adam is assigned the task of examining them carefully, one by one, in order to decide on an appropriate name for each species or bird and beast that was brought before him (Gen. 2:18-20). But before this phase of Adam's experience begins, he is brought into covenant relationship with God, who grants him permission to eat of the fruit of every tree in the garden except one: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:16-17). Verse 18 then shows how Yahweh proceeded to fill Adam's foreseen need of companionship--first by the fellowship with the animals and birds (Gen. 2:19-20), then, after that proves to be unsatisfying, by the companionship of a wife, who is fashioned from the bone that was closest to Adam's heart (Gen. 2:21-22). The chapter closes with a vivid portrayal of Adam's joyous acceptance of his new helpmate and his unreserved commitment to her in love.

The structure of Genesis 2 stands in clear contrast to every creation account known to comparative literature. It was never intended to be a creation account at all, except insofar as it related the circumstances of man's creation as a child of God, fashioned in His image, infused with His breath of life, and brought into an intimate personal relationship with the Lord Himself. Quite clearly, then, chapter 2 is built on the foundation of chapter 1 and represents no different tradition than the first chapter or discrepant account of the order of creation.

Joseph Alward

March 2nd 2003, 01:09 AM

JOE ALWARD

Ric, I invite you to answer the same question I asked Jaltus: If Genesis 2 is just a summary of the creation account in Genesis 1, then why does Lord God say that man was ALONE, and then say he would create animals as helpers, then make the animals, and then find that they were unsuitable? Here are the relevant words, once again:

7 The LORD God formed the man…The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the…But for Adam no suitable helper was found (Genesis 2:7-22)

Thus, Lord God created animals after man, not before. This contradicts the account in Genesis 1, and is very strong evidence that a different writer wrote a second creation account.

Also, what reason can you give for a single writer using the name "God" thirty-one times in a row, then suddenly switching to a different name when he gets to what the apologist believes is a recapitulation, and uses this name eleven times without ever using the name he had used earlier? Does it not make much more sense to believe that there were two different writers at work here, with two different traditional explanations for the creation, and two different names for the deity?

The Laughing Man

March 2nd 2003, 01:13 AM

02-28-2003 @ 01:18 AM
Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD
I believe there are two different—and contradictory—stories of creation in the first two chapters of Genesis.

This is a softball errancy allegation which many people have put to rest a long time ago. (Obviously that doesn't keep skeptics from digging it up from time to time.)

In the first creation story, which is found in the first 34 verses of the Bible (Genesis 1:1-2:3), the animals came first, then man. However, in the second creation story, which is in the next 22 verses (Genesis 2:4-25), the writer explains that man came first, and that God then made animals because man was alone.

Nope. Wrong. Genesis 1 provides a chronological account of creation while Genesis 2 provides a topical account concentrating on the creation of humans. They are neither different (in the sense of being separate stories) nor contradictory.

The apparent reason for the contradiction is that were two different authors from two different cultures with different beliefs about what the deity should be called and the order of creation of man and animals. In the first writer's world, the deity was apparently called "God," and they believed that animals were created before man, while the other culture called the deity "Lord God" and believed that animals were created after man to relieve his loneliness.

This is weak. The Hebrews had many names for God which they used to describe different aspects of God as needed.

Here is the evidence:

Which is flimsy and based on ignorance.

First Creation Story: Genesis 1:1-2:3

As you read first creation story, note that the first author refers to the deity as "God" thirty times in a row, and not once does he call him by a different name:

Why should he? Using "'elohiym" (from an online study guide) alone fits the passage.

Second Creation Story: Genesis 2:4-25

Note that SUDDENLY, beginning at the very spot where the creation story begins again, another writer starts calling the deity "Lord God," and does so nine times in a row, without ever referring to him by another name:

Yeah, "'elohiym Y@hovah" (online study guide) is a completely different name. :ahem: See above.

It cannot be a coincidence, can it? How could it be that at the very place where writer seems to start his creation story all over again that he also decided to abandon the deity's name that he had used thirty times in a row, and suddenly start calling him by a different name, never again using the name he first used?

Gosh, and later on, God is refered to as other names as well! Obviously the authors weren't all talking about the same God! :ahem:

Information taken from http://www.jehova.net/jehova1.htm :

--------------------------------------------------------
Genesis 17:1-2 - El Shaddai ("God of the Mountains" or "God Almighty")
Num. 24:16; 2 Sam. 22:14; Ps. 18:13 - El Elyon ("The Most High God" or "The Exalted One")
Gen. 21:33; Isa. 26:4; Ps. 90:2 - El Olam ("God of Eternity" or "God the Everlasting One")
Judg. 8:33-35 - El Berith ("God of the Covenant")
Gen. 16:13 - El Roi ("God who Sees me" or "God of Vision")
Isaiah 44:24[/b] - El Hoseem ("God of Creation")
Genesis 1 - Elohim (A plural form for deity; "Creator Of The Universe")

"The covenant name for God was 'Yahweh.' Israel's faith was a new response to God based on His disclosure. This name was so unique and powerful that God formed a covenant with His people based upon his self-revelation." (Used in conjunction with "Elohim" in Genesis 2.)

I'll save time and pass on listing all the names for God involving 'Yahweh.' There on the webpage, so you can look them up yourself.
--------------------------------------------------------

Isn't it much more likely that the reason for the discrepancy in the creation order is that there were two different authors, one who called the deity "God, " and another who called him "Lord God"?

Only if one relies on ignorance. Your "evidence" is extremely weak and is easily proven false by even a basic understanding of Jewish culture and language (esp. regarding God), but I'm sure that won't stop you from continuing to whole-heartedly believe it.

(Interested readers may wish to see my argument that the story of the flood is actually two different contradictory stories, from two different authors, woven together. It may be found at http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Two_Flood_Stories.htm.)

In light of your inept attempt to debunk Genesis 1 and 2, I think I'll pass. People who use the sophomoric, uneducated and ignorant accusation of "two creation stories" in Genesis 1 and 2 typically have the same to offer in the rest of their accusations regarding other passages.

Joseph Alward

March 2nd 2003, 01:21 AM

JINX
Gosh, and later on, God is refered to as other names as well! Obviously the authors weren't all talking about the same God!

JOE ALWARD
Note that you used the word "authors, " plural, Jinx. That's exactly my point: Different authors from different times, places, and cultures called the creator by different names. That is what I am alleging happened when the two creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 were written.

The Laughing Man

March 2nd 2003, 01:41 AM

03-01-2003 @ 11:09 PM
Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD

Ric, I invite you to answer the same question I asked Jaltus: If Genesis 2 is just a summary of the creation account in Genesis 1, then why does Lord God say that man was ALONE, and then say he would create animals as helpers, then make the animals, and then find that they were unsuitable? Here are the relevant words, once again:

Again, Joseph, you show your ignorance of the Hebrew language. The two words used in Genesis 1 and 2 are completely different. Here's a good explanation from http://users.aol.com/dennish658/journal/gen0204.htm :

"Two words are used to describe this event: 'create' (chapter 1) and 'form' (chapter 2). Some would interpret this as a contradiction, claiming that the idea of 'create' implies 'something from nothing,' whereas the idea of 'form' implies 'working with something that already exists' (such as, a potter 'forms' a pot out of clay). If we focus on how these words are used, however, we see that there is NO contradiction, and that BOTH accurately describe what happened. For each emphasizes a different aspect of that event.

"And in chapter 2, we read about man becoming 'a living being,' once the 'breath of life' was breathed into him. This, too, is part of the 'immaterial' aspect. [The phrase 'living being' is also used of some of the animals... and the word 'create' is found in that context! (Genesis 1:21) In contrast, in chapter 2, where the material aspect of the animals is emphasized (V.19), the word 'formed' is used!]"

...

"When God says, 'It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make a helper suitable for him,' this does NOT indicate that God made a mistake, or that there was something 'bad' in his work. This concept of 'goodness' has to do with the completeness of the work. It simply indicates that the work was NOT finished. 'Day 6' was not over yet!"

Thus, Lord God created animals after man, not before. This contradicts the account in Genesis 1, and is very strong evidence that a different writer wrote a second creation account.

This allegation has been covered and destroyed in one swelled foop.

Also, what reason can you give for a single writer using the name "God" thirty-one times in a row, then suddenly switching to a different name when he gets to what the apologist believes is a recapitulation, and uses this name eleven times without ever using the name he had used earlier?

Change of focus, slight change of reference to God. As I have already pointed out, this can be seen in many different places in the Bible. It's that simple, Joseph. A little knowledge goes a long way (esp. when defeating skeptic's allegations).

Does it not make much more sense to believe that there were two different writers at work here, with two different traditional explanations for the creation, and two different names for the deity?

No, it doesn't. You really need to do research (even the most basic research would suffice) before presenting these attempts to prove errancy.

Jaltus

March 2nd 2003, 01:42 AM

Joe,

If different names means different authors, we are all in trouble. I go by Jaltus here, and by my real name IRL. Does that mean I am two different people? I call my mom "mom" when talking about her as a person, but I call her by her real name when needing to. Both are still from me.

As for my argument about Lord, you sure did miss my point.

it could be that when God is personal He is called Lord God, Hence PERSONAL as in NAME.

All the editor was doing, it seems, was treating with respect the different beliefs about creation held by different cultures at different times.
Your assumption, for which you offer no evidence. For that matter, it still avoids the question of consistency. Also, do you really think an editor of 2000+ years ago, when editing a polemic, is really going to care about peoples' feelings? Remember, Genesis 1 is a polemic against other ANE creation accounts.

As for man being alone, it is because he hade no WOMAN, hence the account. Again, try reading the chapter as it stands. Aloneness deals with connection, and the chapter explicitly states that Adam was unable to find a helper among the animals. It does not say either when he tried or when they were created. Sorry, Joe, but your argument does not float.

You have a lot of assumptions built into your arguments. I highly recommend you pick up a commentary written by a liberal to see how off you are with respect to the timing of the creation of animals. I have never heard any liberal taking that view. I would assume from such silence that the Hebrew does not allow it. After all, they attack the account on other grounds.

The Laughing Man

March 2nd 2003, 01:55 AM

03-01-2003 @ 11:21 PM
Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD
Note that you used the word "authors, " plural, Jinx. That's exactly my point: Different authors from different times, places, and cultures called the creator by different names.

You are still showing a complete (willful?) ignorance of the Hebrew language. The names aren't different/dissimilar nor are they refering to different Gods or individuals' ideas about God. Even some individual authors used different names for God at different times. It's not a matter of different ideas about God or different stories. It's about refering to God in a specific way or aspect that reflects what the author is currently writing about.

That is what I am alleging happened when the two creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 were written.

And your evidence simply doesn't hold up under scrutiny. It is weak and superficial.

You sure are responding awfully quickly. Are you even bothering to comprehend the information contained in our posts?

The Laughing Man

March 2nd 2003, 02:16 AM

I wonder if Joseph would claim that Exodus 3 was written by 3 different people because it uses the names "God/'elohiym" (e.g. verse 6) "the Lord/Y@hovah" (e.g. verse 2) and "Lord God/'elohiym Y@hovah" (e.g. verse 16) to describe God. :rofl:

Joseph Alward

March 2nd 2003, 04:19 AM

JINX72
I wonder if Joseph would claim that Exodus 3 was written by 3 different people because it uses the names "God/'elohiym" (e.g. verse 6) "the Lord/Y@hovah" (e.g. verse 2) and "Lord God/'elohiym Y@hovah" (e.g. verse 16) to describe God.

JOE ALWARD
Yes, I probably would be prepared to argue that Exodus had more than one author, but not merely on the basis of the different namings of the creator. But, putting that aside, let me invite you to take a look the case I present that there were two authors (at least) who wrote the flood stories in Genesis. The article is "Two Flood Stories," and it is at the following web address:

http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Two_Flood_Stories.htm

Joseph Alward

March 2nd 2003, 04:24 PM

JOE ALWARD
I will summarize my argument that Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1 in the order of creation of man versus animals.

In Genesis 1, the writer clearly states that animals were created first. However, in Genesis 2, the writer states that after creating man, God observed that he was ALONE. This statement alone is sufficient to show that there were not yet animals on the earth. As additional evidence that the animals were not yet on earth, we see next that God said that man needed a helper, so he created animals. Then, it was found that the animals created for man were unsuitable. Few things in all of the Bible are more clear than that the Genesis 2 writer had God create man first, then made animals to provide helpers, found them unsatisfactory as helpers, so he created woman.

Thus, in Genesis 2, the animals are created AFTER man was created. This contradicts the story in Genesis 1, where the animals were created first.

I explained how it happened that these stories contradict each other by showing evidence that there were two different writers who had different ideas about what the creator should be called and the order of creation. The first author came from a culture in which the creator was called "God," and thought the animals came first, while the second author came from a culture in which the creator was called "Lord God," and thought the animals came second.

I have read with interest all of the comments from the various participants in this discussion, but I have not seen anyone make a serious attempt to address the issue of man being ALONE. The strongest part of my argument is based on the writer's statement that God said man was "alone," and that this was not good, so he would create animal helpers for him. No one, in my opinion, has been able to get around these facts. I'll will list them below, one more time:

Proof That God Created Animals After Man

1. The LORD God formed the man
2. The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone.
3. I will make a helper suitable for him."
4. Now the LORD God had formed...the beasts
5. But for Adam no suitable helper was found
6. So God made woman from man

Thus, in the second creation story, man is first, then come the beasts and woman, while in the first story, the animals come before man and woman. These stories contradict each other. Furthermore, one of them is theologically "wrong" from the standpoint of later Bible writers. Let me explain.

Saint Paul: Man Is First Because He Came First

I have argued that different writers had different understandings about the order of creation. The writer of the first creation story thought that the animals came first, and then the man and woman were created at the same time:

So God created man (or, humans, people, mankind) in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)

However, the writer of Genesis 2 thought that man came first, then the animals were created to relieve his aloneness, then woman. The second creation story evidently is the one which Paul accepts, for he makes it clear in his letter to Timothy that he believes that man was first formed--created before woman, not at the same time:

I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (Timothy 2:11-12)

Furthermore, if Paul thought that animals were created before man, his statement that woman should not have authority over man because she came second would be illogical, for then he would have to conclude that man should not have authority over the animals, because he came second, too, and that would be rather odd. Obviously, then, Paul must have believed that man came before the animals, according to the second creation story.

In conclusion, we have a variety of evidence which shows that man was created before the animals, in contradiction to the teaching of Genesis 1. I will just list the main points of the three different sets of evidence below:

1. Man was "alone" in Genesis 2, so God created the animals.
2. Paul apparently believed that man was created before animals.
3. Different creator names, different authors.

spl_cadet

March 2nd 2003, 04:39 PM

03-02-2003 @ 12:24 PM
Joseph Alward:
Furthermore, if Paul thought that animals were created before man, his statement that woman should not have authority over man because she came second would be illogical, for then he would have to conclude that man should not have authority over the animals, because he came second, too, and that would be rather odd. Obviously, then, Paul must have believed that man came before the animals, according to the second creation story.

I'm just going to resopnd to this one thing. Your argument here is illogical and false for two reasons. Firstly, St. Paul is talking about man and woman, he isn't referring to the other species. Second, Genesis 1:26-30 states that man had been given authority over all animals and such.
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
28 God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;
30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.

The Laughing Man

March 2nd 2003, 05:56 PM

I hope Joseph never pulls (or has never pulled) jury duty. Could you imagine the scene in the deliberation room?

Joseph: "The 'witness' is obviously two witnesses."
Jury Foreman: "What?!"
Joseph: "Look at his testimony. It proves he is actually two people."
Jury Foreman: "Are you insane?"
Joseph: "No, really. First, he provided an account in which A and B happened in order. Then he provided an account in which B happened first, then A."
Jury Foreman: "Uh, Joseph... His second account was focused on B and provided more details. A still happened first, but for the purposes of the second account, it was mentioned after B."
Joseph: [ignoring foreman] "See, if you look at each of the accounts, you can clearly see the difference."
Jury Foreman: "There's a reason for that! The first account was chronological and the second was topical."
Joseph: [still ignoring foreman] "The first account clearly shows the first person is saying that the order was A then B. The second account shows that the second person is saying that the order was B then A. Obviously, this witness is actually two people. Does it not make much more sense to believe that the witness is actually two different people at work here, with two different accounts of the events?"
Jury Foreman: "You just don't get it, do you? You don't want to get it!"
Joseph: [you guessed it - ignoring foreman] "Then the witness used three different names for the victim. In one instance, he called him 'Tom,' 'Thomas' in the second, and finally 'Mr. Smith' in the third. Maybe the witness is actually 3 people..."
[Rest of the jury groans of disgust as Joseph babbles on and on without rhyme or reason.]

The Laughing Man

March 2nd 2003, 06:05 PM

03-02-2003 @ 02:19 AM
Joseph Alward:JOE ALWARD
Yes, I probably would be prepared to argue that Exodus had more than one author,

But of course you are! :doh:

but not merely on the basis of the different namings of the creator.

It's exactly what you are doing with Genesis, so why not? Answer: because it's an extremely weak position to take and you know it.

But, putting that aside, let me invite you to take a look the case I present that there were two authors (at least) who wrote the flood stories in Genesis.

Why should we put my evidence (Exodus 3) that you are full of it aside and move on to a subject that is off-topic? Why are you unwilling to admit that your argument about "two different Creation accounts" is bunk?

The Laughing Man

March 2nd 2003, 06:46 PM

03-02-2003 @ 02:24 PM
Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD
I will summarize my argument that Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1 in the order of creation of man versus animals.

Oh, yippie.

In Genesis 1, the writer clearly states that animals were created first. However, in Genesis 2, the writer states that after creating man, God observed that he was ALONE. This statement alone is sufficient to show that there were not yet animals on the earth.

*loud "WRONG" buzzer* Sorry, Joseph. First of all, what is meant by Adam being alone is that he didn't have a mate. Many people in the world today are alone, but they own pets. Second, you can't just take that statement alone because other parts of the passage prove your assertion to be dead in the water (e.g. the issue of "create" vs. "form" that I mentioned above).

As additional evidence that the animals were not yet on earth, we see next that God said that man needed a helper, so he created animals. Then, it was found that the animals created for man were unsuitable.

Again, "formed" vs. "created." See one of my previous posts.

Few things in all of the Bible are more clear than that the Genesis 2 writer had God create man first, then made animals to provide helpers, found them unsatisfactory as helpers, so he created woman.

You really don't understand Hebrew in the least, do you?

Thus, in Genesis 2, the animals are created AFTER man was created. This contradicts the story in Genesis 1, where the animals were created first.

It would if it were actually true.

I explained how it happened that these stories contradict each other by showing evidence that there were two different writers who had different ideas about what the creator should be called and the order of creation.

You showed flimsy evidence that had no chance of holding up under scrutiny, as I have shown.

The first author came from a culture in which the creator was called "God," and thought the animals came first, while the second author came from a culture in which the creator was called "Lord God," and thought the animals came second.

And your evidence of this is limited to an ignorance of the passages. Do you have any evidence outside of these passages? Please, specifically show us what cultures these two supposed authors came from.

I have read with interest all of the comments from the various participants in this discussion,

Obviously not, or you would have seen the error of your argument and moved on to other topics.

but I have not seen anyone make a serious attempt to address the issue of man being ALONE.

Adam had no mate.

The strongest part of my argument is based on the writer's statement that God said man was "alone," and that this was not good, so he would create animal helpers for him. No one, in my opinion, has been able to get around these facts.

The "strongest" part of your argument is based on the weakness of not having even a basic understanding of Hebrew. Please review the responses to your allegations in this thread.

I'll will list them below, one more time:

*sigh* This reminds me of one of my "300 Disproofs of God:"

Unbeliever: [makes argument]
Believer: [refutes argument]
[Time passes]
Unbeliever: [makes the same argument]
Believer: [refutes it again]
[Time passes]
Unbeliever: [makes the same argument AGAIN]
Believer: [throws up hands in disgust and goes home]
Unbeliever: I win!

However, the writer of Genesis 2 thought that man came first, then the animals were created to relieve his aloneness, then woman. The second creation story evidently is the one which Paul accepts, for he makes it clear in his letter to Timothy that he believes that man was first formed--created before woman, not at the same time:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (Timothy 2:11-12)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furthermore, if Paul thought that animals were created before man, his statement that woman should not have authority over man because she came second would be illogical, for then he would have to conclude that man should not have authority over the animals, because he came second, too, and that would be rather odd. Obviously, then, Paul must have believed that man came before the animals, according to the second creation story.

Are you intentionally being this obtuse? This point is so completely devoid of logic and reason that I am utterly astounded by it. When Paul speaks of men having authority because Adam was made first, he is refering to humans only. Your bizarre leap of logic regarding the animals is just plain absurd. (Animals don't teach, btw. Maybe you think they do. Perhaps you'll say "they teach each other" or somesuch load of horse manure.)

In conclusion, we have a variety of evidence which shows that man was created before the animals, in contradiction to the teaching of Genesis 1. I will just list the main points of the three different sets of evidence below:

1. Man was "alone" in Genesis 2, so God created the animals.

Debunked.

2. Paul apparently believed that man was created before animals.

Debunked.

3. Different creator names, different authors.

Debunked.

Three strikes, Joseph. You're OUTTA HERE!!! Cubs win! Cubs win!

Joseph Alward

March 2nd 2003, 08:55 PM

spl_cadet

Furthermore, if Paul thought that animals were created before man, his statement that woman should not have authority over man because she came second would be illogical, for then he would have to conclude that man should not have authority over the animals, because he came second, too, and that would be rather odd. Obviously, then, Paul must have believed that man came before the animals, according to the second creation story.

I'm just going to respond to this one thing. Your argument here is illogical and false for two reasons. Firstly, St. Paul is talking about man and woman, he isn't referring to the other species. Second, Genesis 1:26-30 states that man had been given authority over all animals and such.

JOE ALWARD
Yes, of course Paul is talking about men and women, but you seem to have missed my point. My point is that Paul uses as justification for women not having authority over men the fact that God made them second, so that must mean that God thought more highly of man than women. Being made second means you're less important.

You can read a lot more about women not being the "glory of God" in the article, "Women Not the Glory of God, " at http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/women_in_the_bible.html

Now, the point is this: if being made second is the criterion for dominance that Paul is using, he obviously couldn't have believed that man was made second, after animals, because that would mean to Paul that God thought man was less important than the animals. Thus, we know for sure that Paul's interpretation of the two creation stories was that man was made first, which is consistent with the second creation story.

You mention Genesis 1:26-30 as showing that man had dominance over men. Paul surely would have noticed this, and it seems quite likely that this passage is one which Paul would have coupled with the statement in Genesis 2 that showed that man was made first: Man was made first, and man has dominance over the animals, just as he has dominance over woman, because woman was made after him, too.

Thus, Paul would clearly have rejected the notion from Genesis 1 that God would have wanted to create the beasts of the field before he created humans. It probably just didn't seem right to Paul. Does it seem right to you, theologically, that the almighty chose to make the lowly animals before he made man?

Thus, putting the plain and simple meaning of the second creation story along with the naming issue and Paul's belief about the proper order of creation, we have clear evidence of a biblical contradiction. The first creation story has animals being created first, while the second creation story has them being created second.

Joseph Alward

March 2nd 2003, 09:30 PM

JOE ALWARD
This is about all I want to say right now on the creation order issue, unless some other correspondent wants to weigh in with his or her opinion. JP Holding, if you would like to offer your opinion, I will be happy to reply. Otherwise, I will start a new thread, "Two Authors--Two Flood Stories," in which I lay out my case that the flood stories were written by at least two different authors. I don't know if I will be able post it tonight, so if anyone wants to get a head start, they can read the article, "Two Flood Stories," in the "Genesis" section of the directory on the web page shown in the signature lines below.

The Laughing Man

March 2nd 2003, 10:16 PM

Does anyone else get the distinct impression that Joseph is just here to hawk his website? I'm not falling for it.

spl_cadet

March 3rd 2003, 11:49 AM

03-02-2003 @ 06:16 PM
Jinx72:

Does anyone else get the distinct impression that Joseph is just here to hawk his website? I'm not falling for it.

Yeah, cause it was kinda weird watching the little acrobatics his last post made. I'd respond to it, but I'm in the middle of class at the moment :lol:

Jaltus

March 3rd 2003, 12:28 PM

1. The LORD God formed the man
2. The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone.
3. I will make a helper suitable for him."
4. Now the LORD God had formed...the beasts
5. But for Adam no suitable helper was found
6. So God made woman from man
Serious problem here, namely number 4 totally destroys your theory. READ THE TENSE!

Again, it is pluperfect, saying "had formed," which refers to a previous creation, well before man was made. You really need to consider tenses when you do this.

Also, your argument about Paul shows a lack of reading discernment. Are the animals mentioned in the account? No, because his argument is dealing with the differences between men and women. Woman was created to help man, not vice versa. THAT is the argument Paul is making. You yourself answered this in your above list anyway.

For that matter, angels were created before men, but men are to be higher than angels in the eschaton.

Joseph Alward

March 3rd 2003, 02:07 PM

JALTUS

JOE ALWARD
1. The LORD God formed the man
2. The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone.
3. I will make a helper suitable for him."
4. Now the LORD God had formed...the beasts
5. But for Adam no suitable helper was found
6. So God made woman from man

Serious problem here, namely number 4 totally destroys your theory. READ THE TENSE!

Again, it is pluperfect, saying "had formed," which refers to a previous creation, well before man was made. You really need to consider tenses when you do this.

JOE ALWARD
Let me make three points, Jaltus.

First, Hebrew does not have tenses, so whether an ancient writer may have meant "formed," or "had formed," is a question which must be answered subjectively. I recommend you go to a search engine and type in "had formed+Bible," or, "past tense Hebrew," and you will see what I'm talking about.

Second, 90% of all Bible versions translate the Hebrew in Genesis 2:19 as "formed," not "had formed," as in a prior act. This doesn't prove that the correct translation is "formed," because, as I said, such a translation is necessarily subjective. But, you have to wonder why so many learned translators chose "formed" over "had formed."

Third, most apologist argue this point as if it had been Lord God himself who had said, "I had formed the animals." If he had said this, then of course you would be correct in assuming that God was referring to a prior act, a creation that had occurred before man was created. However, the person speaking is the writer, not God. Thus, it is perfectly appropriate for the writer looking back perhaps hundreds of years to the time of creation to tell us what God HAD done, hundreds of years ago. You see, first it was God who was QUOTED, saying, "It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a helper for him." Then, the narration returns to the writer, who refers to what God HAD done next, which was create the animals. Apologists want the "had formed" to be on the lips of God, so it would clearly have been an act prior to the creation of man, but that is not what happened. It was the writer who was looking back in time, referring to an act prior to the writer's time, not God.

Jaltus

March 3rd 2003, 02:28 PM

Joe,

If you really want me to get into the concept of tenses in Hebrew, we can do so, though I will tell you that I argue from a Text Syntax background.

And if tense means nothing, you just negated your own argument AGAIN.:rofl:

Second, just because it is translated a specific way does not make it right. The 90% can very well be wrong and the 10% correct.

Third, I do not really care how apoligists argue, since they can very well be wrong as well.

Pretty much your argument is based on tenses, since you are argue the TIMING of when the animals were created. However much I may be mistaken about Hebrew (which is not my thing, Greek is my thing) it is quite obvious you just argued yourself out of a position.

Oh, Hebrew does have tenses, by the way, they just do not necessarilly carry time elements.

Joseph Alward

March 3rd 2003, 02:45 PM

JOE ALWARD

Jaltus, I'll repeat below my argument that it was the writer--not God--who was referring to a prior act.

"Third, most apologist argue this point as if it had been Lord God himself who had said, "I had formed the animals." If he had said this, then of course you would be correct in assuming that God was referring to a prior act, a creation that had occurred before man was created. However, the person speaking is the writer, not God. Thus, it is perfectly appropriate for the writer looking back perhaps hundreds of years to the time of creation to tell us what God HAD done, hundreds of years ago. You see, first it was God who was QUOTED, saying, "It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a helper for him." Then, the narration returns to the writer, who refers to what God HAD done next, which was create the animals. Apologists want the "had formed" to be on the lips of God, so it would clearly have been an act prior to the creation of man, but that is not what happened. It was the writer who was looking back in time, referring to an act prior to the writer's time, not God."

This is what I offered in rebuttal of your claim that the "had formed" must have referred back to an act prior to the formation of man. Do you wish to comment on this? If not, then I really would like to move to another thread. Today, perhaps, I will post my argument that there were at least two authors with two different and conflicting flood stories writing in Genesis.

ChrisChillin

March 4th 2003, 04:28 AM

So here's what I see so far...

1. Jo has argued that the animals were created because Adam was ALONE, but he has yet to disprove what makes sense to the rest of us: Adam was alone cuz he didn't have a good woman by his side :teeth: and no trained labrador was going to fix that. How does that not make more sense? And how can that not possibly fit the text, Jo? Does the writer really think God was fumbling along trying to figure out how to make Adam happy?

2. Jo has yet to prove that using different names for God means different deities are being referred to or that it absolutely means that it must, must must must be different authors. At the same time, I will admit the change is striking. There may be the stories of 2 different authors here. And to that I reply...SO WHAT? :hrm: To me at least, believing that these are different stories from different authors compiled together by a third party isn't troubling to my faith. Where does it say in the Bible that I have to believe that Moses wrote all of the Pentateuch? Is that really a problem at all? My faith stands on the person of Jesus Christ, not someone's view of how the Bible was "supposed" to be written. If it's proven that Genesis 1-2 has 2 authors, how in the world does that negate any faith in God's inspiration?

3. Since many of the "contradictions" have been shown to not necessarily be the case, Jo's entire argument rests on the question of tenses. And that's up in the air right now. Is there a Hebrew scholar in the house? :help:

4. About Paul: "Since Adam was formed first..." - Context, context, context! He's only talking about the human race here - men and women, boys and girls, Mars and Venus. Adam was formed before Eve, so in the context of the human race, he was formed first. In keeping with your logic, Jo, you should say Paul is arguing that Adam was formed before the sun, the moon, or any of the stars - and no creation story suggests that.

5. Jo, I know from reading the Flood thread that you like civility. Kudos to you, my man!

6. But.....it looks to me from reading this that you've basically dodged the responses made by the Christians on this thread, made ads for your web site, and have moved on to another topic too quickly. Why not stick it out, provide good detailed answers to the responses and questions given, and discuss Hebrew tenses?

Well, that's all for now...

Joseph Alward

March 4th 2003, 01:11 PM

CHRIS CHILLIN
If it's proven that Genesis 1-2 has 2 authors, how in the world does that negate any faith in God's inspiration?

JOE ALWARD
How does it cast doubt on the Bible as the word of God? Well, showing that there were two different authors would help explain how the two stories contradict each other: Different authors from different traditions with different beliefs about the diety's name and the creation order. If the creation stories contradict each, it makes it harder to accept that other descriptions in the Bible are literally true. Perhaps the stories of the resurrection and ascension are not literally true, too.

How does this affect "faith in God's inspiration"? Perhaps not at all, for faith is belief in that for which there is not only little or no evidence, but instead a mountain of contradicting evidence.

jpholding

March 4th 2003, 03:16 PM

Gosh Doc,

Why not just upload your entire website here to TWeb? :smile:

I don't have time to add another thread to my mix right now, but I do have an article on this -- and people here have been using some of it or some of the same idea. BTW if you want me to come to a thread you need to drop me a line. Feel free to do so direct at jphold@earthlink.net as I don't often check my PMs.

I won't be checking back here because again I've got enoygh on my plate. Chow!

ChrisChillin

March 5th 2003, 11:11 PM

Whoa Jo!

"Hold on to your butts!" - Samuel L. Jackson, Jurassic Park

It is one thing to say that there are two different authors of Genesis 1-2. It's quite another to say that therefore, they MUST have undeniably contradictory understandings about God and the creation order. In fact, those of us responding to you have been arguing that there is no such irreconcilable difference between Gen 1 and Gen 2.

Don't use faulty logic. You have to prove the contradictions before you can suggest opposing traditions for two different authors. So far, we haven't seen the proof and have pretty well argued against it. Are you going to provide good rebuttals, or simply declare again that the Bible contradicts itself, there is little/no evidence for faith, and move on?

Again - don't just say the two creation stories are different and then declare victory. "Oh no, they're not carbon copy stories. It's a contradiction! Stupid Christians..." Prove your case.

Joseph Alward

March 5th 2003, 11:30 PM

JOE ALWARD
I have never been able to prove to an inerrantist that the Bible has an error, Chris. It is always possible to imagine a scenario under which an alleged contradiction is made to disappear.

If the apparent difference in the creation order and the naming issue appeared in the creation stories of some other religion's bible, wouldn't you agree that the more likely explanation for the difference is that there were two different authors with two different traditions?

If the answer is Yes, then why do you not think that there were two different authors in the creation stories in your Bible?

If you believe my evidence of error and two different authors is weak, then I hope you will study my thread, "Two Authors--Two Flood Stories." You will find, I think, that my argument for two authors is almost immeasurably more powerful than the one I've presented for the two creation stories (which I think is very powerful).

ItalianGold

March 6th 2003, 05:10 PM

Apparantly "ignorance of Hebrew" is a condition that 99.9% of the world has. I have yet to find one entire chapter, or even a few consecutive verses that two Christians will agree upon regarding their "real" meaning. It is not helpful to the seeker that believers have no agreement on their beliefs.

The Laughing Man

March 6th 2003, 06:00 PM

03-05-2003 @ 09:30 PM
Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD
I have never been able to prove to an inerrantist that the Bible has an error, Chris.

And why do you think that is? Have you ever considered the possibility that there are no real errors or contradictions in the Bible? I doubt it. Of course, the irony of that statement is that I've never been able to prove to an errantist that the Bible doesn't have errors in it. (Or at least I've never been able to get an errantist to admit such a thing.)

It is always possible to imagine a scenario under which an alleged contradiction is made to disappear.

Imagine? Or research and conclude with great certainty based on real evidence?

If the apparent difference in the creation order and the naming issue appeared in the creation stories of some other religion's bible, wouldn't you agree that the more likely explanation for the difference is that there were two different authors with two different traditions?

*sigh* It's all about research and knowledge, Joseph, and not "half-vast" allegations. I've used both to debunk your claims, but instead of acknowledging the truth, you ignore it and continue on as if I had never said/posted anything. Of course, that is a common skeptic reaction, so I'm not at all surprised..

If the answer is Yes, then why do you not think that there were two different authors in the creation stories in your Bible?

That's a non sequitir, but in any case it is again about research and knowledge.

If you believe my evidence of error and two different authors is weak, then I hope you will study my thread, "Two Authors--Two Flood Stories." You will find, I think, that my argument for two authors is almost immeasurably more powerful than the one I've presented for the two creation stories (which I think is very powerful).

Yeah, but you think all your arguments are "immeasurably powerful." I've seen the thread and I can already tell it's just more of the same unresearched, ignorant (or "non-knowledgable" if you find "ignorant" offensive) hogwash.

The Laughing Man

March 6th 2003, 06:15 PM

03-06-2003 @ 03:10 PM
ItalianGold:Apparantly "ignorance of Hebrew" is a condition that 99.9% of the world has.

If that statement is serious, then you are ignorant. If it's hyperbole, then I'm sure you have no problem with the examples of Jesus using hyperbole in the Bible (e.g. the "hate your family" issue).

I have yet to find one entire chapter, or even a few consecutive verses that two Christians will agree upon regarding their "real" meaning.

How many people have you asked? One?

It is not helpful to the seeker that believers have no agreement on their beliefs.

I have the same feeling about evolutionists who, despite several dozen years of research, still can't agree on exactly how evolution happens.

I'll tell you one thing, though. The one thing you should really worry about concerning what believers agree on is the issue of salvation. I'm not refering to "faith vs. works." I'm refering to Jesus Christ.

Jimmy Higgins

March 16th 2003, 12:56 PM

There are actually quite a few contrasting differences between the two myths.
1) Opening situation. It is commonly called that the second story just contrasts the creation of man. This is difficult to agree with. The Paradise narrative begins its own different way. The status of the earth is that of a dry earth, (Genesis 2:5). No plant had yet to grow. Then a flow of water, a flood to say, came over "the whole surface of the earth". Water in this story is what saves the planet. It was bare and dry and water came to save it.

Meanwhile the First Story of Creation speaks not of a dry earth, rather "the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep..." (Genesis 1:2). In other words, the world was a chaotic mess of water. This contrasts greatly with the Paradise narrative which says the beginning dealt with a dry earth.

2) Plants. Genesis 2:5 makes a startling revelation regarding plants in Genesis 2:5, saying that "no shrub of the field was yet on earth..." because:
a - No rain "the LORD GOD had not sent rain upon the earth"
b - No man to till the soil "there was no man to till the soil"
The great contrast here is that Genesis 1:12 says "The earth brought forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it." This occurs on DAY TWO. Well before man is created and certainly not indicating that man was necessary for plants to exist, like Genesis 2:5 claims.

3) Manner of creation. God is much much much more hands on in the Pardise Narrative. God uses his hands to create animals and man from the ground Genesis 2:7,19,22. Meanwhile the First Story of Creation sees that God creates items merely by speaking it, Genesis 1:3,6,9,14,20,24. Mix this in with Alwards comments and we being to see that there are many contrasting points.

Socrates

March 16th 2003, 01:18 PM

How boring can you get? People with no idea of Ancient Near Eastern literature patterns pontificating on Genesis "contradictions". But in ANE documents, there was first a summary outline of a whole, then it would concentrate on one particular aspect. Genesis 1:1-2:4a is about the creation of the whole universe, while Genesis 2:4b focused on the creation of Adam and Eve, providing far more detail, and presupposing that the reader understood Genesis 1.

As for the plants: the plants and herbs are described as ‘of the field’ in Genesis 2 (compare 1:12) and they needed a man to tend them (2:5). These are clearly cultivated plants, not just plants in general. Also, the trees (2:9) are only the trees planted in the garden, not trees in general. So goodbye contradiction here too, because with the different plants, it's not a.~a

Other alleged contradictions are also trivially dealt with, e.g. with the pluperfect "had formed" in Genesis 2:19 (NIV), a permissible rendition of the wayyiqtol in this context according to Leupold and Keil & Delitzsch.

Jimmy Higgins

March 16th 2003, 01:32 PM

Today @ 12:18 PM
Socrates:
How boring can you get?Why the insult?

Genesis 1:1-2:4a is about the creation of the whole universe, while Genesis 2:4b focused on the creation of Adam and Eve, providing far more detail, and presupposing that the reader understood Genesis 1. Actually, there is no referral to any points in the First Story of Creation in the Paradise narrative, so your final point is rather unsubstantiated, though, I can see why one could posit such a suggestion. It is viable, however, it is not necessary and without any references of the second story to the first, it is not proven.

As for the plants: the plants and herbs are described as ‘of the field’ in Genesis 2 (compare 1:12) and they needed a man to tend them (2:5). These are clearly cultivated plants, not just plants in general.I'm sorry. I wasn't aware of any plant on this planet that can only grow by the efforts of man. I always thought tomatoes, potatoes, grapes, and blueberries, etc... grew on their own without the necessity of man. Genesis 2:5, as well as you, seems to suggest that there are plants that can only grow because of man. What plants are these?

Also, the trees (2:9) are only the trees planted in the garden, not trees in general. So goodbye contradiction here too, because with the different plants, it's not a.~a I didn't really question about the trees. But are you suggesting that trees existed before the plants? If so, I can't explicitly say that is incorrect. The words given are shrubs and grass. Therefore, it can honestly be assumed that trees already did exist.
However, this doesn't answer the question about shrubs and grass not existing when Genesis 1 says they already do.

Other alleged contradictions are also trivially dealt with, e.g. with the pluperfect "had formed" in Genesis 2:19 (NIV), a permissible rendition of the wayyiqtol in this context according to Leupold and Keil & Delitzsch. I never brought this up. Didn't feel the need to.

You have yet to answer, perhaps because you need to do a little looking up, the issues regarding the method of creation and the original status of the earth in each story. I look forward to your comments on that.

Socrates

March 17th 2003, 02:04 AM

Socrates:

How boring can you get?
JH:
Why the insult?Because it was amply deserved. Those who don't know Arabic should not try to speak Arabic. JPHolding is humble enough to realise this, when some misotheists kept on trying to debate him about science (and avoiding taking him on in his fields of expertise because they know they'd get splattered). But the typical biblioskeptic thinks he's capable of debating Bible contradictions with little knowledge of the original language or historical context.

Genesis 1:1-2:4a is about the creation of the whole universe, while Genesis 2:4b focused on the creation of Adam and Eve, providing far more detail, and presupposing that the reader understood Genesis 1.
Actually, there is no referral to any points in the First Story of Creation in the Paradise narrative, so your final point is rather unsubstantiated, though, I can see why one could posit such a suggestion. There doesn't have to be, because readers in the ANE paradigm would realise that Genesis 2 is just an elaboration of points in Genesis 1.

As for the plants: the plants and herbs are described as ‘of the field’ in Genesis 2 (compare 1:12) and they needed a man to tend them (2:5). These are clearly cultivated plants, not just plants in general.

I'm sorry. I wasn't aware of any plant on this planet that can only grow by the efforts of man. I always thought tomatoes, potatoes, grapes, and blueberries, etc... grew on their own without the necessity of man. Genesis 2:5, as well as you, seems to suggest that there are plants that can only grow because of man. What plants are these?There ARE plants that require cultivation. Fact remains though, the Hebrew words are different, as reflected in the English translations, and that is enough to destroy the claim of "contradiction".

Joseph Alward

March 17th 2003, 03:15 AM

JOE ALWARD

I notice that the issue of "had formed" has come up again in this thread, so I would like to offer my opinion on it. For the convenience of readers, here is the relevant verse:

7 The LORD God formed the man…The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the…But for Adam no suitable helper was found (Genesis 2:7-22)

Some apologists try to argue that the words "God had formed…the beasts" means that the author is stating what had been done prior to making man. This argument fails, however, because the writer makes it perfectly clear that God tried to relieve man's loneliness by making beasts as helpers. Thus, the animals HAD to have been made after man had been created, otherwise God wouldn't have said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him," and then made the animals.

90% of all Bible versions translate the Hebrew in Genesis 2:19 as "formed," not "had formed," as in a prior act. This doesn't prove that the correct translation is "formed," because such a translation is necessarily subjective. But, one has to wonder why so many learned translators chose "formed" over "had formed."

Most apologist argue this point as if it had been Lord God himself who had said, "I had formed the animals." If he had said this, then of course the apologist would be correct in assuming that God was referring to a prior act, a creation that had occurred before man was created. However, the person speaking is the writer, not God. Thus, it is perfectly appropriate for the writer looking back perhaps hundreds of years to the time of creation to tell us what God HAD done, hundreds of years ago. First it was God who was quoted, saying, "It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a helper for him." Then, the narration returns to the writer, so it is the narrator who refers to what God HAD done (hundreds of years before) next, which was: create the animals.

Apologists want the "had formed" to be on the lips of God looking back in time to what he had done, in order to make the creation of animals an act prior to the creation of man, but that is not what happened. It was the writer who was looking back in time, referring to an act prior to the writer's time, not God.

I probably won't look in again on this thread because I think the positions of each side are fairly clear, and nothing much will be gained by further discussion.

Jimmy Higgins

March 17th 2003, 09:56 AM

Today @ 01:04 AM
Socrates:

[quoto]
Why the insult?Because it was amply deserved. Those who don't know Arabic should not try to speak Arabic. I'm sorry if you think I'm completely too incapable and insolent of discussing the Tanakh. I'm hardly arguing mere semantics here. I'm pointing out the vast valley that exists between the two stories. Two points of which, the original status of the earth and the manner of creation, you've yet to make a comment on. I'm still looking forward to reading about what you have to say on those two issues.

JPHolding is humble enough to realise this, when some misotheists kept on trying to debate him about science (and avoiding taking him on in his fields of expertise because they know they'd get splattered).But I'm not debating the science of either story. I'll let other people take that line. I find it to be ineffective. However, I'm clearly making points on what the scriptures are saying themselves. One says that plants had grown for the power to grow came from the earth, the other said they hadn't because man didn't exist yet. This isn't a question of not knowing the original language this was written in, but what would seem to be a contradiction.

But the typical biblioskeptic thinks he's capable of debating Bible contradictions with little knowledge of the original language or historical context.I'm working on both issues. However, the language is of little interest when the actions are clear. The flood was a flood, irregardless of the word used. God created a flood. The conditions of earth differ in both stories. There isn't a translation issue here. One speaks of a watery chaotic world, the other a dry world.

There doesn't have to be, because readers in the ANE paradigm would realise that Genesis 2 is just an elaboration of points in Genesis 1.Actually, there is no referral to any points in the First Story of Creation in the Paradise narrative, so your final point is rather unsubstantiated, though, I can see why one could posit such a suggestion.

I'm sorry. I wasn't aware of any plant on this planet that can only grow by the efforts of man. I always thought tomatoes, potatoes, grapes, and blueberries, etc... grew on their own without the necessity of man. Genesis 2:5, as well as you, seems to suggest that there are plants that can only grow because of man. What plants are these?There ARE plants that require cultivation. Fact remains though, the Hebrew words are different, as reflected in the English translations, and that is enough to destroy the claim of "contradiction". Can you please elaborate a bit on a couple of fronts? A: What plants in this world need man to grow? B: What is the original Hebrew calling out, that the English has apparently slaughtered, in your opinion, its original meaning.

I conclude that I am still eagerly awaiting the 2 issues I brought up that you haven't really discussed yet. 1) The manner of creation and 2) The original status of the earth. Looking forward to those replies.