Creation According to Genesis: One Account or Two?

I understand that this is your argument. But repeating it doesn't prove anything. The Bible is full of mishmashed source material telling contradictory stories. I opened a thread to bring the discussion to a new topic. Please do. Right now I'm waiting to see you respond to PaulK's calling you on your ridiculous blunder in Message 8 ("Finally, where does the first account require men and women to be created together?").My guess is you'll treat PaulK's arguments the same as you've treated mine: ignore them and post repeated requests for 'evidence' while paying no attention the requests by others that you post some of your own.But I hope you'll prove me wrong.

What I gave above not my argument. It is instead my position. I also provided several arguments for my position based on the text of the Bible. On top of the that I pointed out what I thought were the weaknesses and strength of the argument. I have responded to some of Paul's arguments and my responses have included at least one acknowledgement that he was correct. Anybody can read my responses and see that your description does not match the truth.I find that I don't generally have the need to ask Paul for evidence more than once.

I'm not claiming that 2:4 and forward are an identical telling only that they account describes the same events and is not inconsistent with chapter 1. There is no mention absolute mention of time in the Chapter 2 material, but no such mention is needed for consistency.On the other hand, I don't see a refutation of my point that 2:5 does not imply an that man appeared before plants appear which was what I addressed in your post. Fair enough. But the NIV is not the only translation which takes this position, and a general criticism of the NIV, primarily by fundamentalists does not settle the issue of which translation is correct. Right, but that alone does not make the position wrong. I don't personally have "issues" with the NIV. My wife on the other hand does prefer the KJV. There is not enough detail in Genesis 1:27 to claim that the verse requires simultaneous creation. Read literally the verse says the same day, which of course would cause a problem for someone who insists upon that kind of literal reading of how time passed during creation. In fact, I would use chapter two as argument if I were discussing this issue with a literalist.I consider a reversing of events a serious discrepancy, and I've already indicated that I think your best argument so far is the order of creation of man and animals. I'm not claiming to have countered your argument.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

quote:

---

On the other hand, I don't see a refutation of my point that 2:5 does not imply an that man appeared before plants appear which was what I addressed in your post.

---

2:7 describes the creation of man and 2:8-9 describe the creation of plants following that event. And, of course the other story has plants created days before man (or longer since you seem to take the "days" as non-literal)

quote:

---

Fair enough. But the NIV is not the only translation which takes this position, and a general criticism of the NIV, primarily by fundamentalists does not settle the issue of which translation is correct.

---

Who says that I am talking about fundamentalist criticisms at all? Outside of Fundamentalist criticisms the NIV is known as being questionable in places for smoothing out difficulties and this is one example.

quote:

---

Right, but that alone does not make the position wrong. I don't personally have "issues" with the NIV. My wife on the other hand does prefer the KJV.

---

From what I've read I wouldn't recommend either as translations. For more casual reading the NIV might be better for modern readers, but it isn't the most accurate.

quote:

---

There is not enough detail in Genesis 1:27 to claim that the verse requires simultaneous creation. Read literally the verse says the same day, which of course would cause a problem for someone who insists upon that kind of literal reading of how time passed during creation. In fact, I would use chapter two as argument if I were discussing this issue with a literalist.

---

The days are one of the features of Genesis 1-2:3 most likely to be intended literally - the continual references to morning and evening support that reading. I don't think that it is viable to single them out as non-literal elements, although it is possible to insist that the entire story is non-literal.But aside from that the creation of man and woman is still described as a single event, and not with woman created as something of an afterthought, after going through all the animals as potential partners (and surely this is something that makes little sense when taken literally!)

I've already addressed all of this. All translations have errors and impreciseness. Questionable in places does not demonstrate that it is questionable in this case. Surely your argument is not that your chosen translation is the gold standard. At some point one of us needs to make a case that his chosen interpretation is correct. The sun and moon are described as being created on the same day. Does that imply a single event? The text simply does not contain the precision you are insisting on. We may not be able to agree on this point. I think the fact that three of these Days passed during a period of time when there was no Sun is a pretty good hint that the days were not literal, but obviously that is not the conclusion that literalists insist on. I don't believe that any of Genesis, up through the Flood story and even beyond was ever meant to be taken literally.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I've already addressed all of this.

---

In the translation that I am looking at (NASB) the planting of the garden follows the creation of man. There's nothing that implies that plants existed first.Even if you dispute that 2:8 refers to the actual appearance of trees, suggesting that none existed prior to that, which is still in contradiction to the other story.

quote:

---

All translations have errors and impreciseness. Questionable in places does not demonstrate that it is questionable in this case

---

However I am not relying on general criticisms. I am relying on specific criticism of that verse. "Questionable in this case" DOES mean "questionable in this case"

quote:

---

The sun and moon are described as being created on the same day. Does that imply a single event? The text simply does not contain the precision you are insistin

---

That would depend on interpretation. If Genesis 1:14-15 is taken as creation by word (as the "and it was so") implies then the creation of the Sun and Moon was a single event. If you take 1:16-18 as describing the process of the creation then it was two separate events - but even then, they are sequential.The wording is different in 1:27. but I can see no reading that justifies a significant gap between the creation of men and women. Indeed, I would read it as a single event, creating multiple - more than two - humans.

quote:

---

New American Standard Bible
The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.

---

Yes, I agree the NASB gives no support to the idea that plants were completed first. It comes pretty close to ruling out the idea that even the garden was planted first, although an extra preposition here or there would have been helpful.

quote:

---

Douay-Rheims Bible
And the Lord God had planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning: wherein he placed man whom he had formed.

---

On the other this translation does provide such support. This I do dispute. None of the translations of 2:8 that I have looked at say anything about any the creation of plants outside of the garden in Eden. Perhaps you meant to refer to another verse?The distinction is significant because it creates an asymmetry for 2:8 respect to our positions. 2:8 refers only to those plants that are part of the garden of Eden. Accordingly, it can be used to demonstrate conclusively that there were at least some plants before man (if such translations are correct). But even if the verse said that man was created before the garden, that does not conclusively say anything about whether any plants outside of the garden existed before man. Okay. Here is what you said. Upon re-reading I find I can take this as a either a specific criticism of this verse or simply an example of smoothing by a known smoother. In any event, you've resolved the issue.Could you point to a specific criticism of the NIV's rendering of this verse? It is quite likely that such criticism would decide this point in your favor, particularly if the criticism included a discussion of the original language that the NIV has smoothed over.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

quote:

---

On the other this translation does provide such support.

---

On the other hand, if planting the garden in this version referred to actual growing plants it would contradict 2:5, and wouldn't sit well with 2:9. If the panting referred to planting seeds it would fit with those, but contradict the first account again

quote:

---

This I do dispute. None of the translations of 2:8 that I have looked at say anything about any the creation of plants outside of the garden in Eden. Perhaps you meant to refer to another verse?

---

You're right but the verse is 2:9. Even if you assume that it only refers to the Garden of Eden, it would be pretty odd for God to have created full grown trees all over the world, have planted the garden including all other growing plants but then wait to create man before producing full-grown trees in Eden. (Odd that you didn't recognise 2:9)

quote:

---

The distinction is significant because it creates an asymmetry for 2:8 respect to our positions. 2:8 refers only to those plants that are part of the garden of Eden. Accordingly, it can be used to demonstrate conclusively that there were at least some plants before man (if such translations are correct).

---

If you assume that planting the Garden refers to placing growing plants there. If it refers only to seeds - which would seem to be a better reading given 2:5 and even 2:9 the problem remains.

quote:

---

Okay. Here is what you said.

​

Outside of Fundamentalist criticisms the NIV is known as being questionable in places for smoothing out difficulties and this is one example.

​

Upon re-reading I find I can take this as a either a specific criticism of this verse or simply an example of smoothing by a known smoother. In any event, you've resolved the issue.

---

What I originally said was: There's no ambiguity there.

quote:

---

Could you point to a specific criticism of the NIV's rendering of this verse? It is quite likely that such criticism would decide this point in your favor, particularly if the criticism included a discussion of the original language that the NIV has smoothed over.

---

It's well-known enough to have made it in to Wikipedia:
Unfortunately the references are to books, so can't be easily checked.

I cannot agree with most of this reasoning.First if a garden does not refer to actual growing plants, then the verse is asinine in my opinion. Secondly, 2:9 does not provide a contradiction. It simply says that there were no trees in the garden. Read literally, only 2:5 presents any issue.Again, I question the idea that every creation event described in chapter one (or two for matter) must occur instantaneously as by a magician "poofing". It is enough that God did what he did during a 'Day' whatever length that turns out to be and that events continued to completion. I understand that you interpret it differently, but I would suggest that using a particularly interpretation that requires a contradiction and then pointing at that contradiction as evidence is not a strong argument. If I start with the conclusion that the verses are consistent, then I can force even the tiniest ambiguity to provide a consistent reading.On the one hand, you have clearly made your original point that regarding a legitimate interpretation regarding 2:18. But to go further and say that the text requires the interpretation is where we depart ways. I am taking the blame for getting this wrong. Perhaps by giving an excuse I made that unclear. I make no excuse here. You've provided a reference. It's on me to check it out. I will note that the quoted portion simply compares one translation to another translation and provides Sailhamer's conclusory statement about the translation being impossible.As for the argument Sailhamer provides that the NIV translaton does not fit, the fundamentalists interpretation of creating animals is that God created and brought animals to be Adam's companions, but that such an event was not necessarily the first creation of animals. That interpretation removes the argument that the NIV and other translations have missed the point of the story since Adam seems to spend all of the time in the garden up until the point where he gets the boot.My own interpretation almost all of chapter 2 consist of grafted on detailed that never happened in the first place, and that chapter 1 is sheer speculation about a process the authors cannot understand. Chapter 1 is short on detail and in fact is so short that questions like 'how much time passed between the creation of Adam and Eve, and was the process used identical simply are unanswerable based on the wording of chapter 1. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

quote:

---

First if a garden does not refer to actual growing plants, then the verse is asinine in my opinion.

---

I see nothing wrong with the planting referring to planting seeds or calling the space a garden after the seeds have been planted but before they have germinated.

quote:

---

Secondly, 2:9 does not provide a contradiction. It simply says that there were no trees in the garden. Read literally, only 2:5 presents any issue.

---

If one insists on reading like an inerrantist rather than considering what the text is actually telling us, that is. Obviously the trees - an important part of the garden - were NOT present as growing plants prior to 2:9. If you wish to interpret the planting as referring to placing growing plants, rather than seeds, in the ground you need to explain why the trees were excluded.

quote:

---

Again, I question the idea that every creation event described in chapter one (or two for matter) must occur instantaneously as by a magician "poofing"

---

Since I've never suggested any such thing that is hardly an objection to my reasoning.

quote:

---

I am taking the blame for getting this wrong. Perhaps by giving an excuse I made that unclear. I make no excuse here.

---

The fact that the excuse - at best - ignored a relevant fact is also an issue. Had the excuse been reasonable I would have let it pass without comment.

quote:

---

As for the argument Sailhamer provides that the NIV translaton does not fit, the fundamentalists interpretation of creating animals is that God created and brought animals to be Adam's companions, but that such an event was not necessarily the first creation of animals. That interpretation removes the argument that the NIV and other translations have missed the point of the story since Adam seems to spend all of the time in the garden up until the point where he gets the boot.

---

I think that Sailhammer's claim that the translation is "impossible" is more important. However you manage to completely miss even this secondary argument. Sailhammer states that the point odf the story is that: Clearly the creation must follow the declaration to be "in response" to it.

quote:

---

Chapter 1 is short on detail and in fact is so short that questions like 'how much time passed between the creation of Adam and Eve, and was the process used identical simply are unanswerable based on the wording of chapter 1.

---

I don't believe that anyone would argue that if not for the conflict with the second creation story. The creation of mankind - male and female - is presented as a single act.

Genesis 2:5 takes care of that.According to Gen 2:5 rain and humans are a prerequisite for the growth of plants:

quote:

---

Genesis 2:5 (NIV):

​

Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground,

---

To remedy this, YHWH first makes things wet:

quote:

---

Genesis 2:6 (NIV):

​

but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.

---

Then he makes a man:

quote:

---

Genesis 2:7 (NIV):

​

Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

---

There are clearly no plants created until after YHWH creates a man to take care of them. The need for the man is specifically one of two reasons that YHWH postpones the creation of plants.This sequence of events, including the motives, is simply irreconcilable with the Genesis 1 account in which plants are poofed effortlessly into existence three full days before God creates humans. Who needs to waste time criticizing your preferred translation when even that translation, as I've just shown, proves how wrong it is to believe the first and second creation accounts are consistent?

Yes, that's what the verse says. However we did get plants without rain. God provided mist. And also, regardless of what the text says, not all plants need man to work the ground before they can appear. In fact, the text says that God planted some of the plants. So there are your substitutes for the prerequisites.There is also the point that man cannot create plants out of nothing. So if man is going to do planting, it will be of seeds that already exist or are provided by God. And just as babies come from mommy and daddy, seeds come from mature plants. Does the text provide any help with your position on that? You attempted to make a showing using arguments I had already largely addressed in other discussions.We've already established that between you and I, I am the only one who needs to provide any evidence for his position. Since it is fairly difficult to have a debate in such a fashion, I am concentrating on discussing this topic with others.There is no need for you to provide any evidence. I asked Paul to back up his argument and he provided references. I don't think the references where dispositive for the reasons I gave, but I've accepted that the ball is kicked back into my court.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I don't see anything wrong with calling a garden an area with plants in it either. You are simply picking a translation that causes a conflict. I'd say the same thing about your requirement that create means instantaneous poofing of everything named in the verse. I have never interpreted Chapter 1 to require any such thing, so this is not a position I've generated for this debate.It seems to me that we are covering the same ground with mere repetition of our arguments, but getting closer to making personal attacks on the sanity of the position holder. I'm not going to respond to those things, so unless there is something new, I'm left with looking up your reference regarding the translation issue. I cannot get to that right away.

Which watered the ground as a rain would do... Such has been your position throughout this thread it would seem. Stop inventing the story in your head and read the damn text.Whether YHWH dropped some seeds in the ground or set up the plants in mature form is irrelevant because the second creation story makes it clear that the appearance of plants was postponed until after there was rain/mist/rivers to water them and a man to take care of them.The point of the analysis, ignored by you several times, is that Man existed before the plants according to Genesis 2, but was created long after the plants according to Genesis 1. You fussed about the difference between 'mist' and 'rain' when the purpose of the story was to say there was to say the plants needed to be watered and needed to have a man to take care of them. In 2:6 they get the waterthere went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. In 2:7 they get the man. In 2:8-9 YHWH plants a garden. In 2:10-14 he waters the garden. In 2:15 he has the man take care of it.There's some wicked awesome parallel running through the Genesis 2 creation narrative. Plants need: Something to water them, Man to take care of them (Gen 2:5)
Water is provided(2:6)
Man is formed (2:7)
Plants are brought about (2:8-9)
Plants are watered (2:10-14)
Man takes care of plants (2:15)Within this we have another thread: after the mention of the main plants (2:8) the man is dropped in the garden (with no purpose yet) and then 2:9 tells us of the creation of the two Trees that will become important later in the story. In 2:15 when man is again described as being put in the garden, the act is followed immediately by mention of one of those important Trees (2:16).Man:tree (2:8-9)
Man:tree (2:15-16)All this comes together to create a highly structured yet delicate narrative that falls very apart if we assume there were plants ahead of time, or that the mist from 2:6 has nothing to do with the need for water mentioned in 2:5, or, really, any of your assumptions. A thorough and close reading of the second myth that actually takes into account the textwhat it says, and how it says itcan only reveal that Man was created before the plants.There's no other way to read it without destroying the whole damn story; your attempt to mangle it up for the sake of making it appear consistent with some other unrelated tale is no exception.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : So many typos...

quote:

---

I don't see anything wrong with calling a garden an area with plants in it either.

---

Since nothing I've said has suggested otherwise, this is at best irrelevant rhetoric.

quote:

---

You are simply picking a translation that causes a conflict

---

Since we are discussing your favoured translation, this is obviously untrue. The more so since I'm offering an interpretation that fits better with the context and I,ve given reasons to support that,

quote:

---

I'd say the same thing about your requirement that create means instantaneous poofing of everything named in the verse.

---

Since I've made no such requirement - and already corrected you on this issue - I see no excuse for you to repeat your false assertion.

quote:

---

It seems to me that we are covering the same ground with mere repetition of our arguments, but getting closer to making personal attacks on the sanity of the position holder.

---

It seems to me that you are very much neglecting the text and my arguments. Pointing out where you have obviously misconstrued the argument you are responding to is neither a mere repetition, nor a personal attack. Indeed it is necessary for constructive discussion.