Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
25 online now:
Faith, LamarkNewAge (2 members, 23 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,719 Year: 18,755/19,786 Month: 1,175/1,705 Week: 427/518 Day: 45/58 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 91 of 149 (148001)
10-07-2004 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by dpardo
10-03-2004 2:20 PM


dpardo responds to me:

quote:
One of the differences between your example and the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 accounts is that you have an actual date (February 18) for "Dinner at Leona's". In the Genesis 2 accounts, we are not given a date (or day) like in Genesis 1.

Yes, we are:

The event of the creation of the animals.

You're too fixated on a specific date (January 15). You need to generalize. It doesn't matter on which day the events happened. The simple fact of the matter is that Gen 1 says that all animals were created BEFORE humans were. It doesn't matter how long BEFORE the creation of humans the creation of animals happened. The simple fact of the matter is that the Gen 1 timeline is that plants and animals happen BEFORE any human of any type shows up.

But Gen 2 gives a different timeline. It says that a male human showed up BEFORE the plants and animals arrived on the scene.

It doesn't matter if Adam showed up years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, or mere seconds before the animals. The precise date of Adam's creation is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that Adam is created BEFORE the creation of animals and plants.

This is in direct contradiction to Gen 1 that says the plants and animals were first.

So are you saying that Gen 1 is holding something back? That there was a male human created before plants and animals that wasn't mentioned?

Or are you saying Gen 2 is holding something back? That Adam was not the first human and the plants and animals created had nothing to do with the events of Gen 1?


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by dpardo, posted 10-03-2004 2:20 PM dpardo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by dpardo, posted 10-07-2004 1:13 PM Rrhain has responded

  
dpardo
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 149 (148099)
10-07-2004 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Rrhain
10-07-2004 3:53 AM


I believe we are in agreement about what Genesis 1 says.

It is Genesis 2 where we disagree.

My understanding of Genesis 2 is that the author does not always narrate chronologically but instead, shifts, at times, to detail some events.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Rrhain, posted 10-07-2004 3:53 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Rrhain, posted 10-09-2004 4:39 AM dpardo has responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 93 of 149 (148611)
10-09-2004 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by dpardo
10-07-2004 1:13 PM


dpardo responds to me:

quote:
My understanding of Genesis 2 is that the author does not always narrate chronologically but instead, shifts, at times, to detail some events.

And your justification of this is what, precisely?

Are you seriously claiming that god has the attention span of a gnat? That he noticed that Adam was alone but was then immediately distracted by the need to create the animals? That the animals had nothing to do with the search for a helpmeet for Adam?

If so, how do you reconcile this with the direct statement that there was no helpmeet to be found among the animals? If they weren't looking for one among the animals, why would they bother mentioning that one wasn't to be found?

There weren't any animals on the earth when Adam is created. Adam is the first human ever.

But that directly contradicts Gen 1 which says that at least one animal was created the day before the first humans were created.

I'm still having a hard time believing you claimed birds and whales are not animals.


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by dpardo, posted 10-07-2004 1:13 PM dpardo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by dpardo, posted 10-09-2004 12:35 PM Rrhain has responded

  
dpardo
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 149 (148662)
10-09-2004 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Rrhain
10-09-2004 4:39 AM


Hi Rrhain,

dpardo writes:

My understanding of Genesis 2 is that the author does not always narrate chronologically but instead, shifts, at times, to detail some events.

Rrhain writes:

And your justification of this is what, precisely?

My justification for this is that the author already gave us the chronology in Chapter 1.

Rrhain writes:

Are you seriously claiming that god has the attention span of a gnat? That he noticed that Adam was alone but was then immediately distracted by the need to create the animals? That the animals had nothing to do with the search for a helpmeet for Adam?

I am claiming that God did not create the animals in Genesis 2:19. The reason, IMO, for the following statement in Genesis 2:19:

"And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field..."

is to tell us that he formed them out of the ground.

Are you claiming that God made the animals in an attempt to find a helpmeet for Adam?

Rrhain writes:

If so, how do you reconcile this with the direct statement that there was no helpmeet to be found among the animals? If they weren't looking for one among the animals, why would they bother mentioning that one wasn't to be found?

The reason, IMO, for the following statement in Genesis 2:20:

"...but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him."
is to inform us that the animals did have helpmeets.

Rrhain writes:

I'm still having a hard time believing you claimed birds and whales are not animals.

I apologize. I thought that was a trick question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Rrhain, posted 10-09-2004 4:39 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Rrhain, posted 10-09-2004 5:58 PM dpardo has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5399
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 95 of 149 (148668)
10-09-2004 12:42 PM


Are you claiming that God made the animals in an attempt to find a helpmeet for Adam?

I won't speak for Rrhain, but that's what the text you're discussing says. Very plainly, too.

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 96 of 149 (148700)
10-09-2004 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by dpardo
10-09-2004 12:35 PM


dpardo responds to me:

quote:
quote:
quote:
My understanding of Genesis 2 is that the author does not always narrate chronologically but instead, shifts, at times, to detail some events.

And your justification of this is what, precisely?


My justification for this is that the author already gave us the chronology in Chapter 1.


That makes no sense.

If a person comes to you and says, "First I ate breakfast, then lunch, then dinner," and then a couple hours later he says, "First I ate lunch, then breakfast, then dinner," are you seriously trying to say that it is justifiable to think he was "shifting to detail some events" because he already gave us a chronology?

Are you truly that naive?

They were simple questions, dpardo:

Are birds and whales animals?
Were they not created the day before humans?
Were not humans first created the day after birds and whales?
Was not Adam the first human?
Were there any animals created anywhere when Adam was created?
Weren't the animals created specifically after the moment god noticed Adam was alone?

You can't have it both ways. Either humans were created before animals were created, contradicting Gen 1, or they were created after, contradicting Gen 2.

quote:
quote:
Are you seriously claiming that god has the attention span of a gnat? That he noticed that Adam was alone but was then immediately distracted by the need to create the animals? That the animals had nothing to do with the search for a helpmeet for Adam?

I am claiming that God did not create the animals in Genesis 2:19.


(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you?

Genesis 2:19: 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.

What is this if not an act of creation?

Like I said, let's forget about the animals...let's talk about the PLANTS:

Genesis 2:5: And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

Not only are there no animals around, there aren't any plants around because it has never rained ever and there isn't someone to work the soil.

Both of these are in direct contradiction to Genesis 1.

Since Gen 2 directly states that there are no plants or animals anywhere before Adam gets created, how is that squared with Gen 1's timeline where animals and plants are created before humans?

Is Gen 1 holding back? God created humans somewhere between day 3 and the beginning?

quote:
The reason, IMO, for the following statement in Genesis 2:19:

"And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field..."

is to tell us that he formed them out of the ground.


But that's exactly how he did it in Gen 1:

Genesis 1:24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

It's also how he did it with regard to plants:

Genesis 1:11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

1:12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

1:13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.

So what are you complaining about? Oh, that's right...because in Gen 1, birds and whales come out of the water. Yet another contradiction. The only way around it is to insist that Gen 2 is some secondary creation story...that god happened to forget that he had a whole slew of animals already wandering around that he could have brought to Adam so instead he creates a whole new set.

But the problem is that Gen 1 says that animals come from the ground, too.

quote:
Are you claiming that God made the animals in an attempt to find a helpmeet for Adam?

Yes. That's precisely what the Bible says:

Genesis 2:20: 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.

quote:
quote:
If so, how do you reconcile this with the direct statement that there was no helpmeet to be found among the animals? If they weren't looking for one among the animals, why would they bother mentioning that one wasn't to be found?

The reason, IMO, for the following statement in Genesis 2:20:

"...but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him."
is to inform us that the animals did have helpmeets.


(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you? That sentence has absolutely nothing to do with finding helpmeets for the other animals. It says absolutely nothing about how the he-goat has a she-goat and the lioness her lion. Gen 2:20 (and your hatchet jobs of quotation are getting ridiculous) says that Adam, who was alone and needed a helpmeet, was presented with a parade of animals whom he named but couldn't find a helpmeet for himself.

God did not send Adam the task of pairing off the animals. He sent Adam the task of looking for a helpmeet for Adam and one could not be found. And because one could not be found, god makes a female human out of Adam's body.

quote:
quote:
I'm still having a hard time believing you claimed birds and whales are not animals.

I apologize. I thought that was a trick question.


So how were you going to justify that birds and whales are not animals?

Yes, the question is a bit of a trick question. It points out that there were animals running around on the earth BEFORE there were any humans anywhere.

And yet Gen 2 directly states that there weren't any animals anywhere before the creation of the first human.

That's a contradiction.

If I tell you, "Breakfast, then lunch," and then immediately say to you, "Lunch, then breakfast," those two statements cannot be reconciled no matter how much you try to claim that the first timeline is accurate and the second is just "details." The first was just as detailed as the second.

Don't you think enumerating the days and providing the chronological order of events is fairly detailed?


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by dpardo, posted 10-09-2004 12:35 PM dpardo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by BobAliceEve, posted 10-10-2004 11:51 AM Rrhain has responded

  
BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 3683 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 97 of 149 (148877)
10-10-2004 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Rrhain
10-09-2004 5:58 PM


No contradiction
Hi all,

It is my studied but humble opinion that there is no contradiction.

It seems to me that Genesis 1 is speaking of the design phase of a project and Genesis 2 is speaking of the implementation phase of the same project. If so, then this is one consistent project.

In every engineering activity the developers form a plan or design then execute it. God is telling us that this is His way, also. I work in software engineering where we do top-down design and bottom-up programming - which completely explains the clear "chronoligical reversal" seen in these two chapters.

Are other engineering disciplines top-down design. Bridges, buildings, airplanes, ...

Thanks for listening,
BAE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Rrhain, posted 10-09-2004 5:58 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 10-10-2004 1:12 PM BobAliceEve has not yet responded
 Message 100 by arachnophilia, posted 10-10-2004 6:02 PM BobAliceEve has responded
 Message 104 by Rrhain, posted 10-11-2004 1:08 AM BobAliceEve has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 149 (148901)
10-10-2004 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by BobAliceEve
10-10-2004 11:51 AM


which completely explains the clear "chronoligical reversal" seen in these two chapters.

It's not a reversal, though. It's a change in order.

But I love that the only way for you folks to wave away this contradiction is with these extra-Biblical flights of fancy about engineering and bridges and "getting more specific." Where in the text, exactly, do you find support for this interpretation?

Whatever happened to being literal? There's a literal contradiction here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by BobAliceEve, posted 10-10-2004 11:51 AM BobAliceEve has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by arachnophilia, posted 10-10-2004 5:59 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 108 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 3:11 AM crashfrog has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 266 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 99 of 149 (148952)
10-10-2004 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by crashfrog
10-10-2004 1:12 PM


this what i love about literalists: they're only literal when it supports their opinions. i don't believe the bible literally, but i seem to read it more literally than they do.

yes, there's a contradiction there. personally, i don't have any problems with it, because i could care less about the details. both stories are trying to tell us something, and both have a sightly different focus. if i'm forced to side with one story over the other, it'll be genesis 2.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 10-10-2004 1:12 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 266 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 100 of 149 (148953)
10-10-2004 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by BobAliceEve
10-10-2004 11:51 AM


Re: No contradiction
It seems to me that Genesis 1 is speaking of the design phase of a project and Genesis 2 is speaking of the implementation phase of the same project. If so, then this is one consistent project.

if that's a good reading, which it's not, then god didn't follow through on his plan. it's not one consistent project.

it's NOT a good reading because the first story actually says that god creates, not plans to create. the creation of man is described twice within two chapter, and it's done two completely different ways. why is it such a jump to think that they're to unrelated stories?

especially knowing that first nearly duplicates a babylonian creation myth, and textually dates much later because of its style and the way it refers to god.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by BobAliceEve, posted 10-10-2004 11:51 AM BobAliceEve has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by BobAliceEve, posted 10-10-2004 7:55 PM arachnophilia has responded

BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 3683 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 101 of 149 (148968)
10-10-2004 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by arachnophilia
10-10-2004 6:02 PM


Re: No contradiction
Hi Arachnophilla,
Thanks for responding.

Would you agree that the first five verses of chapter two refer to the verses in chapter one?

Assuming that you will say "yes" (risking being wrong but trying to conserve posts) the follow-on question is: would you agree that verse five says "...every plant of the field before it was in the earth..."

So, the first 36 verses of Genesis are about plants before they were "in the earth". We agree that they were created in chapter one so they must have been "created" somewhere else since they were not yet created "in the earth"? And, logically, if there were no plants then there were probably no animals yet in the earth? So they also were created somewhere else before they were created "in the earth"?

Knowing God as a powerful being, I would argue that it is reasonable that God's design process would be like an engineer's making a mock-up but it would be different in that God simply created the real thing somewhere else then recreated it "in the earth".

I look forward to your response,
BAE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by arachnophilia, posted 10-10-2004 6:02 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Coragyps, posted 10-10-2004 8:02 PM BobAliceEve has not yet responded
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 10-10-2004 8:06 PM BobAliceEve has not yet responded
 Message 105 by Rrhain, posted 10-11-2004 1:18 AM BobAliceEve has not yet responded
 Message 107 by arachnophilia, posted 10-11-2004 2:51 AM BobAliceEve has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5399
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 102 of 149 (148970)
10-10-2004 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by BobAliceEve
10-10-2004 7:55 PM


Re: No contradiction
That's it!! Hydroponics! Hydroponic plants and animals both!

Why not just read the freakin' text like it is? That's how my dad did, and he was a missionary and then preacher for his entire life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by BobAliceEve, posted 10-10-2004 7:55 PM BobAliceEve has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 149 (148971)
10-10-2004 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by BobAliceEve
10-10-2004 7:55 PM


I would argue that it is reasonable that God's design process would be like an engineer's making a mock-up

Engineers make mock-ups because their designs are not always perfect, and they make mistakes.

Do you believe that God makes mistakes? If not, why would he need to build mock-ups?

Do you think about these things before you say them, or do you simply cast about for any explanation at all?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by BobAliceEve, posted 10-10-2004 7:55 PM BobAliceEve has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 104 of 149 (148985)
10-11-2004 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by BobAliceEve
10-10-2004 11:51 AM


Re: No contradiction
BobAliceEve responds to me:

quote:
It seems to me that Genesis 1 is speaking of the design phase of a project and Genesis 2 is speaking of the implementation phase of the same project.

But Gen 1 gives specifics:

Animals on Days 5 and 6 with no other intervening events in the process.

Humans on Day 6 after the animals with no other creation of humans ever at any other time.

Gen 2 gives different specifics:

Male human first before any plants or animals created anywhere ever.

Plants and animals after the male human.

Female human after the plants and animals.

These two timelines cannot be reconciled. So what is being left out? Is Gen 1 holding something back? Humans were created before Day 6? Or is it Gen 2 that's holding something back? That when Gen 2 directly states there aren't any plants because there isn't a man, it's lying? There really are plants around?

quote:
In every engineering activity the developers form a plan or design then execute it.

True, but if one set of plans says "Wiring on Tuesday, Ducts on Wednesday," and another set of plans says, "Ducts on Tuesday, Wiring on Wednesday," then which one is the actual set of plans? They obviously contradict each other.

That's the problem of Gen 1 and Gen 2. The timeline is different. Gen 1 specifically states that it's plants, animals, humans. Gen 2 specifically states that it's male human, plants, animals, female human.

They can't both be correct. It's a very simple question: Which was created first: Humans or animals?

quote:
I work in software engineering where we do top-down design and bottom-up programming - which completely explains the clear "chronoligical reversal" seen in these two chapters.

Double-talk generators at maximum, Captain.

This is complete bullshit. It has nothing to do with the question at hand. It's a very simple question: Which was created first? Humans or animals?

Gen 1 says animals. Gen 2 says humans.

Which is it?


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by BobAliceEve, posted 10-10-2004 11:51 AM BobAliceEve has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 10-11-2004 1:20 AM Rrhain has not yet responded
 Message 140 by BobAliceEve, posted 10-11-2004 6:36 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 105 of 149 (148986)
10-11-2004 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by BobAliceEve
10-10-2004 7:55 PM


Re: No contradiction
BobAliceEve writes:

quote:
We agree that they were created in chapter one so they must have been "created" somewhere else since they were not yet created "in the earth"?

No, we don't agree at all.

Instead, they were created right there and then. They were not created anywhere else. They did not exist until they were created. Gen 2 is quite explicit that the reason why there are no plants anywhere is because it has never rained and there is no man.

Only after a male human is created do we get plants.

But that is a direct contradiction of Gen 1 which says that plants were created three days before humans, who did not exist anywhere in any way, shape, or form until they were created on the sixth day.

quote:
So they also were created somewhere else before they were created "in the earth"?

Nope. There is no reason to think "in the earth" is some sort of special thing. Where else would plants be except in the earth?

And since both Genesis 1 and 2 say that animals and plants were created out of the earth, it is ridiculous to claim that these things were created somewhere else out of something that wasn't earth and then physically placed upon the earth.


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by BobAliceEve, posted 10-10-2004 7:55 PM BobAliceEve has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019