Thanks very much. By the way, my post was message 53 of thread 243 in forum 1. You can see these numbers in the url of the post, which is linked below. You can also use these numbers with the "msg" ubbcode to put a link in your post. If the numbers are negative, then the name of the forum/thread/post is suppressed. Details in the ubbcodes page.For example; the code [msg=-1,243,-53] will appear in a post as Message 53.

not sure if it counts as an explanation in the terms you're looking for, but the best historical reason is that the original torah was lost when the hebrews went into babylonian captivity. during or after that time, the head rabbis in a last ditch effort to save their religion from beign swallowed by the babylonian culture actually reconstructed the missing portions from memory.this explains a good deal of the inconsistencies, babylonian influence (noah?) and major problems. most of all, it does explain the conflicting accounts commonly found right next to each other. maybe one rabbi remember the story in genesis 1, and another the one in 2, and both were put in.

my opinion.have you ever written a five paragraph essay? those dreadful evil things they made us write way back in high school? first you give a theme for what you're going to say (in the begining god created the heavens and the earth). then you have three paragraphs defining specific arguments or examples (insert day by day junk here). then you have a concluding paragraph summarizing what you did (chapter 2).but then i'm just a n00b.

Thanks for the advice Sylas, I'll fit in some practice time as soon as work settles a bit.It seems to me that the explanation that God "may still have been producing new animal kinds" when Adam was created is unsupported by anything written in Genesis.The views expressed in this thread and others - including the Babylonian origins of the myths - make much more sense to me.

I disagree, on several levels. Science is not an ideal. Simply put, it is observation and explanation. Without science there would be no Bible for you to read. Science does not require "faith," in the sense you use it. Quite the opposite. Your faith is a belief in that which is not observable. Science only deals with observable facts. If you think science is non-personal, then I suppose you never visit a doctor. True? Science does not attempt to hold people accountable. That's left to the field of law. I have to wholeheartedly disagree with the entire statement on its premise, questioning which is easier. One of the easiest things a person can do is say, "I believe in God." Science on the other hand requires thought, smarts and study. Not easy by any definition. I doubt your use of a period in place of a question mark was intentional. No matter. It appears you are making a statement. You cannot speak for everyone, yet you feel you are on to something. Making blanket statements that describe the world in black and white terms is an error in judgement. The first sentence in your post, "It is easier...as opposed to..." is a good example of this. You incorrectly assume science and religion are opposed to each other. The human race does not operate within good and evil, easily discernable boundaries. I can prove this quite easily with your next generalized statement: When I was a teen (and every moment of my life up until then), I wanted more than ever to be free of my abusive, violent, alcoholic father. His "rules" were without a doubt designed to limit my enjoyment of life and free exercise thereof. I suppose the day my father lined my mother, brother and sister, and me up against the wall, pointing a loaded shotgun and threatening to blow us away, I suppose I can safely assume 1) He was not concerned with my safety 2) He didn't love me.My father derived his authority from the very Bible you speak of. He was a staunch proponent of black and white thinking. So, in response to your idea that a Personal Creator is necessary in order to hold one accountable for one's actions, I say, "That is a very dangerous idea, indeed!"This message has been edited by chicowboy, 07-19-2004 02:40 PMThis message has been edited by chicowboy, 07-19-2004 02:41 PM

Geneses Chapter one and Chapter two are separate accounts of the same events. However, unlike most modern literature not every thing is set in chronological order.Geneses Chapter one is a chronological account of the events of creation; its purpose is to chronicle for us the creation of all things in this universe (Please note that this is not meant to be a detailed chronicle, more an overview).Geneses chapter two, on the other hand, has a different purpose, and is not a chronological account of the events.The purpose of Geneses chapter two is to chronicle the fall of mankind. Thus, just be cause item B is mention as being created and then item A is mention as being created there is no reason to say that item B must have been created first.The verses in chapter two that have created this confusion are Geneses 2: 18 -1918. And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.19. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
(KJV)
Now reading these two verses it is easy to come to the conclusions that:‘ God created man before animals
‘ Gods reason for creating the animals was to find a (help meet) for AdamHowever, if you take it from the point of view that this is an account of God’s first dealing with man, then you can see that the writer is not listing thing in chronological order, rather he is listing them in order of relevance to the subject he is speaking to. In verse 19 he references to the creation of the animals to show that thy wouldn’t make appropriate help meets to Adam. Thus, there is no contradiction between Geneses chapters One and Two.

---

John3: 16, 17

From what part of the text do you derive that conclusion?

Dear Chicowboy,I would like to comment on your posting dated 7/19/4’. Specifically the last two paragraphs.Please forgive me if this hits to close to home. It is not my intention to harm or insult you.It appears to me that you have chosen to reject the teaching of the Bible on the bases of your abusive father’s use of, and quotation from it.Please do not think me callus, but I believe your logic is flawed here. Have you ever read the Bible, through, completely?The Bible makes it clear that we are to Love even our enemies. {Luke 6: 27 - 29} You state that your father was not concerned with your safety, and that he did not love you.The Bible makes it clear that we should be sober. {I Peter 5: 8} The Bible makes it clear that being a drunkard is not a good thing.9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. {I Corinthians 6: 9 - 11}(KJV)Many people have misused, misquoted, and down right lied about what is in the Bible. Does that make the Bible wrong?If I said that my abusive, and alcoholic father was a police officer, or a judge, and that he clamed that his position gave him the right to do these thing, is he right? Should I hate the law, because he abused it also?Again, I am not trying to hurt you. My intention here is to help you make a distinction between a man who claimed to be of god, and the God of the Bible.On another subject, could you explain what you mean buy Without science there would be no Bible for you to read.? I though it an interesting statement.If you would like to correspond with me on this or any other issue, Please E-Mail me.

Which conclusion are you asking about? The Conclusion that chapter two has a different purpose or that it is not a chronological account of the eventsMy conclusion that its purpose is not to chronicle the creation event, I believe, is supported by the fact that the focus of chapter two is on Mankind.My conclusion that it is not a chronological account of the events is based on simple deduction.There are two possibilities1) Chapter two is a chronological account of creation; in which it conflicts with the first chapter.2) Chapter two is not a chronological account; thus, there is no contradiction with chapter two.The text can easily be interpreted ether way. Therefore, instead of thinking the author was a blooming idiot, it seams reasonable to say that the order in which he place the two events {creation of mankind and creation of animals} was not by chronology but by relevance to the subject he was on. {I.E. his subject was not the animals it was mankind}The wording in chapter two does not emphatically state that animals were created before mankind; it simply references to the creation of mankind before mentioning the creation of animals.

---

John3: 16, 17

This is kind of what I was getting at; you're not basing your interpretation of these passages on anything textual but rather your own extrabiblical interpretation. In other words, what you're saying is that if you assume that there's no contradiction between G1 and G2, there is no contradiction between G1 and G2.That's not an argument, that's circular reasoning. G1 and G2 tell the same story, but in two different orders. There's nothing in either one of them, textually, that implies that we're supposed to take one as chronological and the other not. Moreover, the language of G2 is narrative - God says this, does that, Man has such-and-such a reaction - and narratives are inherently chronological. Your assumption, of course, is that G1 and G2 have the same author. Another possibility is that these are two different but similar oral histories passed down before finally being transcripted into the Hebrew holy texts; and that there was never any expectation that these passages should be taken literally but rather, interpreted as two similar views on the spiritual origin of the Hebrew people. I'm thinking that your first sentence was supposed to be "..state that animals were created after mankind..." and moreover, it does indeed specifically say just that:

quote:

---

Genesis 2:18-22
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

---

I mean, it can't be clearer than that. First God makes Man, then says to himself "damn, this dude's gonna need some help on this big planet, how about some creatures?" at which point he makes animals. At that point Man's like "dude, I'm not into 'animal husbandry,' if you get my drift" and God, at that point, makes Woman from his rib.The text makes it very clear that God creates the animals after Man, because God creates them for the purpose of being helpers to Man. There's no other way to "easily" interpret the text - G2 is a chronological account, like G1.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-20-2004 03:26 AM

Gen 1 & 2 have always been difficult to reconcile for those who would like to take the Bible as a literal document and expand its purpose beyond theology to include history and science. But it is not a big problem if the Bible is viewed as a compilation of various people telling basically the same story but from different points of view and reference. Here is a link to a Pastoral Letter from The Rt. Rev. Bennett J. Sims, Episcopal Bishop of Atlanta that deals with Creation and Evolution. For those of you who might not be Episcopalians, a Pastoral Letter is something sent by the Bishop to be read to each and every member of the congregation. It is a statement of view and direction, but not the same as the Roman Catholic pronouncement of Faith. It is meant to be instructive but is not law. It may help you understand how many Christians view the relationship between those two subjects, and those two accounts in the Bible.On the issue of Genesis 1 & 2, here is what it says. The really important statement to me is... IOW, the writers were trying to show the why in the only way they knew, by trying to show how. But they were working from a base of their knowledge at the time of how things happened, and with all of the restrictions of their limited knowledge and experience.The letter contains far more information. It clearly outlines the Christian viewpoint that Science deals with How things happen while Religion is more concerned with Why.If you get a chance, look the letter over. I think it is a well written summary of how the two areas, Science and Religion can be mutually supportive rather than mutually exclusive.edited to add mandatory spelling errors.This message has been edited by jar, 07-20-2004 05:28 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I really can't think of any clearer signal that the Bible is a metaphorical work, and not a literal historical account - how could God make it any clearer than by making it so that if you try to take it literally, you can't get past the first two chapters?It's like a sign saying "you must be at least this insightful to enter."

I think the vast majority of Christians would agree with you.If you accept Genesis as being literal, then Genesis 2 proves Genesis 1 is false, therefore all is false.

The Map is not the Territory.

edited to fix htmlThis message has been edited by jar, 07-21-2004 09:55 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jrtjr1,Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I have not chosen to reject the teachings of the Bible as a whole. Jesus made profound statements. I wish more people followed in his footsteps rather than glorify the Book itself. Personally, I don't need a book to know the difference between right and wrong. There is much wisdom to be gained from the Bible, however, as well as the works of other faiths and philosophers. To directly answer one of your questions, no I haven't read the Bible completely. I've read a good deal of it, and I find the OT quite strange and irrelevant to modern life. In fact, the fusion of Jewish scripture with the NT to form the Christian Bible seems quite unusual to me.Regarding my childhood, and your analogy with law officials: It is wrong for anyone to mistreat anyone else, especially children. That is quite understood. There are no valid excuses. Your analogy is a good one, those who assign power to themselves based on some other authority. No, I shouldn't hate the law, but I generally 'hate' cops. Not because of the law, but because of how it is administered. The same holds true with the Bible. I don't hate the Bible, but it is being used today in the USA to foster hate and violence. This is what I find to be dangerous.To answer your question regarding science and the Bible: Writing is an invention, hence it can be seen as science. From the manufacture of papyrus to modern day mass publishing, all scientific endeavors.To close, I'll give you a little insight into my mind. Suffering is portrayed in nearly all religions. It's depicted differently among them, most notably between Eastern and Western philosophies. I need not read into any of them because the value of suffering is clear to me through my experience. That being, regardless of the cause, suffering makes one stronger. If it is caused by the hand of another, it instills a sense of empathy, encouraging one to act with kindness in their life. All this can get pretty deep philosophically. For instance, the idea that good requires evil to exist. I won't get into it here, but I prefer the Tao view of universal balance.

First, thank for the typographical correction.Second, You state that I assume that there's no contradiction between G1 and G2, {then} there is no contradiction between G1 and G2.Using your own logic, I could just as easily say that you assume there is a contradiction, therefore there must be one.The thing I do not understand is how you can say I have not showed that they do not conflict. Is there no such thing as a contextual clue? I am sorry there’s not a single verse in chapter two that says, Hay, people, this is in order of importance, not time.If I were to used the following two sentences when speaking with you?On Tuesday I had a meeting with someone about schedule changes and then one on Friday about the budget. The meeting about the budget went well, however they want me to pick up another day.Would you say that I am contradicting myself?If my logic is so faulty, please, show me where I went wrong. On the subject of faulty logic, you suggest, that these are two different but similar oral histories passed down Here you suggest that Ch1 and Ch2 where written by different authors.a) What historical evidence do you have to support this supposition?
b) Ch2 starts off Thus the Heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. It sounds like all of creation has been finished, and the writer is starting on what came next. {I.E. after the creation event} {Could this be a contextual clue?}About Geneses 2: 18 — 22, now who is jumping to conclusions. You’re making the assumption that because God is talking about His main subject {I.E. man} and thus mentions him first, that everything that follows must have happened in sequence that it was written. Is it not customary when writing English to mention the main subject before the secondary subjects? If you’ll notice it says And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field It did not say And then out of This is not a typo, it shows that the event {I.E. out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field} did not necessarily happen after the formerly mention situation {I.E. the man He had created and placed in the garden}. {Could this be another contextual clue?}Try this on for size.Read all of Ch1, and then ask yourself ’what was the main subject, what was the authors point in writing Geneses Chapter 1’. Then read all of Ch2, and again, ask yourself ‘what was the main subject’.If the main subject of both is, as you say, two different but similar oral histories of creation, then I am wrong. However, if their main subjects are different, then is it not at least possible, that I am right?