Sir. Crashfrog, Thou hast insulted thy Honor.
Taking off the glove from my right had, I slap you across the face.
I challenge thee, Sir Crashfrog, to a duel at thirty pages.
O.K. All joking aside, it seams that you have formed a hypothesis about Ch1 v Ch 2. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this seams to be what your saying.
You hypotheses that Geneses Chapters One, and Two are:
A) Both chronological accounts of creation {I.E. They both describe the order in which Universe and earth were constructed.}
B) Both myths {I.E. there is no factual evidence to show that ether are true, or both directly contradict the established history of the origins of the universe and the history of life on this Earth.}
C) Originally authored by different writers.
D) In direct contradiction to each other.
Instead of challenging you to a duel, I’d like to invite you, and anyone who would like to join us, to a little textual experiment. We have a Hypotheses, so, lets test it.
Now, as I understand it, the scientific method goes something like this.
1) Correctly identify the frame of Reference.
2) Determine the initial conditions.
3) Perform an experiment, or observe the phenomenon noting what takes place, and when and where.
4) Note the final conditions.
5) Form an hypothesis.
6) Test the hypothesis with further experiments and/or observations.
I also see the need to put forth a few definitions; this so that we’re all on the same page.
According to my Webster’s New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997 the following are defined as such:
Contradiction: 2a statement in opposition to another; denial. {Direct opposition between two statements or between any two things compared.}
Paradox: 1[Archaic] a statement contrary to common belief 2a statement that seems contradictory, unbelievable, or absurd but that may be true in fact {a seeming contradiction that can be resolved.}
To start off, I guess the first thing we should do is start at the beginning. We must first establish the correct frame of Reference.
Now, as Crashfrog has correctly stated, the chapter and verse breaks in the Bible are not original, they were added later. So if you take out the Chapter and verse breaks you get a single continues story; as it originally was read.
Lets stop where Chapter two stops, simply because this is the scope of our discussion. If we take into account the whole of the text, {I.E. Looking at it as one continuous account} a few questions arise.
1) Taking the text as a whole, why would the writer give two apposing accounts of creation in the same text, even if the original accounts were by different authors?
2) The second portion of the text seams to be repeatedly referring back to the first half of the text. Could this mean that the second half is not an account of the creation event, rather an account of Gods dealing with mankind?
So, what do you think the proper frame of reference is in this case?
™ Version 4.2
