Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2

dpardo writes:

quote:

---

If I am presented with a book that is claimed, by some, to be inerrant, should I automatically assume that it isn't and look for contradictions.

---

Yes.Even if you are presented with a book that isn't claimed by anybody to be inerrant, you should automatically assume that it isn't and look for contradictions.It's called "critical thinking" and "reading for content."

quote:

---

Or, should I read it, and when I see an apparent contradiction, study it, ask questions, and make sure I interpreted it correctly?

---

That last, of course. But you never take anybody's word that something is inerrant. To do so means you've turned your brain off.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

dpardo writes:

quote:

---

Genesis 1:27 says:

​

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

​

The verse above simply states that he created them.

---

Remember what I said in another thread about intellectual dishonesty? This is a perfect example.You are absolutely right that Gen 1:27 simply says that humans were created and doesn't mention when they were created.But to then insist that this somehow means that Genesis 1 doesn't mention when humans were created is to simply ignore all the other verses in the chapter.Genesis 1:19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.1:20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.1:21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.1:22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.1:23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.Now some simple questions:1) Are fowl and whales animals?2) Did this event happen on the fifth day? Please do not play semantic games on what the meaning of "fifth" is.Now, let's take a look at what Genesis 1 says about humans:Genesis 1:23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.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.1:25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.1:26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.1:28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.1:29: And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.1:30: And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.1:31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.Now some simple questions:3) Did this event happen on the sixth day. Please do not play semantic games on what the meaning of "sixth" is.4) Is this not the first time humans are created in the timeline? No other humans are created at any other point? That is, the Bible isn't holding out and not mentioning that humans were actually created on day 3?5) If the answer to 1) above is that indeed, fowl and whales are animals and if the answer to 4) above is that indeed, humans don't show up at any time until the sixth day, does this not indicate that there are animals running around before there are humans?Now, let's see what Genesis 2 says:Genesis 2:18: And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.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.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.Now, some simple questions:6) Does not the above indicate that Adam, the very first human ever, was alone?7) Does not the above indicate that there were no animals anywhere to be found at the time Adam was created? After all, if there were already animals around, why would god need to create them again in order to find a helpmeet for Adam? Wouldn't he just need to bring the animals that already existed to Adam to be named?8) If 6) and 7) above are yes, does this not mean that the male human was created before animals?Therefore, the final question:9) Don't the answers to 5) and 8) contradict each other?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

dpardo writes:

quote:

---

Which is more likely:

​

a. The author contradicts himself in the very next chapter.

​

or

​

b. Some people may have interpreted Genesis 2 incorrectly.?

---

Neither. There's a third option:Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were written by different people and thus, we are not surprised to find they contradict each other.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

dpardo responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

But you never take anybody's word that something is inerrant. To do so means you've turned your brain off.

---

​

I assure you that I have not turned my brain off. I simply have not come across an apparent contradiction that I could not explain, yet.

---

Incorrect.You haven't explained anything. Instead, you have done everything you can to avoid the question...even to the point of outright lying.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

dpardo responds to PaulK:

quote:

---

Do you honestly think God created animals and birds (male and female) in an attempt to create a suitable helper for Adam rather than just create a female version of him first?

---

Yes. That is precisely what the Bible says:Genesis 2:18: And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.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.Are you trying to say that Gen 2:19 has no narrative connection at all to Gen 2:18? That god has the attention span of a gnat? He was worried about Adam being alone but, "Ooh! Shiny thingie!" and suddenly he's off on a completely unrelated task?Are you seriously saying that the creation of the animals was done for some reason other than to make a helpmeet for Adam?Then why does the Bible directly state that that was the reason for their creation?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.Are you seriously saying that in the middle of a sentence, we have a complete shift of narrative focus? The Bible is explicit in the plot:Adam is alone and that's bad [note...I thought everything was good].
God creates all the animals and brings them to Adam, who names them, but a helpmeet is not found among the animals.You seem to want to ignore that last plot point. What is the point of saying, "but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him," right after talking about bringing the animals to Adam, which is said right after talking about how Adam is alone, if not to say that the animals were created in order to find a helpmeet for Adam but there wasn't anything suitable?What do you think the word "found" means?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

dpardo responds to Arachnophilia:

quote:

---

quote:

---

yes. it does. at the same time. it says he created man and woman in the image of god.

---

​

It does not state that he created them at the same time. You are interpreting that.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?In Genesis 1, what was left to create by the time you get to Gen 1:26? We had light and the division of light and the separation of the firmament and the land from the waters and the plants and the sun and moon and stars and the animals.All of that is talked about in Gen 1:1-25. Not only that, it is described as a completed action...that's part of the point of saying that "god saw that it was good."It is only AFTER all that happens that we get to the creation of humans.So even if we say that when god made humans, he made first the male one and then the female one, the fact of the matter is that god didn't create anything else between them. And since he did this action before the day was over, he has for all intents and purposes created them at the same time. The point behind Gen 1:27 is that god was creating humans. Therefore, the creation of humans was started when the first one was initiated and finished when the last one was completed.When you're painting a triptych, you're not done until you've completed all three. When humans are created in Gen 1, they are not completed until both male and females are created.Since nothing gets created in the midst of the creation of humans, then the only sane comment is to say they were created at the same time.Please, please tell me where in Genesis 1 we find any indication that god had a sidetrack of creating yet more animals in between the creation of a male human and a female human? God had already created the animals before he got around to the humans.This is not a question of "interpretation." This is a question of you simply misrepresenting what the text says. Are you doing so deliberately or accidentally?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

dpardo responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You are absolutely right that Gen 1:27 simply says that humans were created and doesn't mention when they were created.

​

But to then insist that this somehow means that Genesis 1 doesn't mention when humans were created is to simply ignore all the other verses in the chapter.

---

​

I'm not sure I understand your argument here.

---

If I'm looking at my day-planner and I see that written on January 15 is an entry saying, "Dinner at Andre's," and then I find another entry on February 18 saying, "Dinner at Leona's," can we say that I had dinner at Leona's after I had it at Andre's? There is no direct statement in the February 18 entry mentioning January 15 or my previous dinner. And yet, nobody would claim "that's just a matter of interpretation" if it were claimed that my dinner at Leona's was after my dinner at Andre's.The point is that while it's absolutely true that Gen 1:27 doesn't mention if humans were created in the morning or the evening or if god had some grand Spielbergian moment with lots of lights and flashes and when the smoke clears there are male and female humans appearing at the same time or if instead god has a series of pops where each individual comes into being one at a time, it is also true that the rest of Genesis 1 explicitly points out that this event, whatever the details of its process, happens AFTER the creation of animals.Humans are created on the sixth day.Fowl and whales are created on the fifth day.Fowl and whales are animals.Therefore, since the sixth day happens AFTER the fifth day, humans are created AFTER animals.In fact, the Bible points out in Gen 1 that humans are created AFTER everything else created that day. The text explicitly states that the land animals that were created that done were completed ("good") BEFORE god gets around to creating humans.So once again, whether or not humans were created in the morning or at night or if they were created all at once or one at a time is irrelevant: They were created AFTER all the other animals were created and no other event happened in the middle of the creation of humans.Notice that animals get created on two different days. The fowl and the whales are on day five. Then the Bible explicitly points out that the day ends and the next one beings. AND THEN the land animals get created.But nothing happens when humans get created except for the creation of humans.Thus, the plot line of Gen 1 is explicitly described with no wiggle room:Plants, animals, humans.There is no "interpretation" to be made here.Gen 2, on the other hand, describes a different plot line:Male humans, plants, animals, female human.Even if we assume that god made humans in Gen 1 in sequential order and created the male human first and then the female human, that doesn't alleviate the contradiction between the two plot lines.Gen 1 allows no creative event to happen between the male human and the female human. Gen 2 puts a creative event between the male human and the female human. Both cannot be true.

quote:

---

Genesis 1 does state that humans were created on the 6th day.

---

But you need to be more explicit:Genesis 1 not only states that humans were created on the sixth day but also that they were created AFTER animals.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Now some simple questions:

​

1) Are fowl and whales animals?

---

​

1. No

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Birds and cetaceans aren't animals? What are they? Plants? Fungus? Bacteria? Minerals?I'm having a flashback to the claim that humans aren't animals, either.

quote:

---

Regarding the above quote, it indicates that, with reference to Eve not having been created yet, he was alone. But the animals had already been created.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Where in Gen 2 do we find that animals were created before Adam?Hell, let's forget the animals. Let's talk about the 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.Since you agree that humans were created on the sixth day, I think we can then agree that plants were created BEFORE humans, yes?But let's look at Gen 2: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.Is this not a direct statement that there are no plants?Please, no semantic games about "field."So no plant life...and then god makes a human:Genesis 2:6: But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.2:7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.2:8: And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.2:9: And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.So the timeline is, again, directly contradicted: No plants because there isn't a human, so god makes a human and then plants a garden (but I thought a man needed to till the ground), puts the man in it, AND THEN makes the trees.So a very simple question:When were the trees created? The third day as indicated by Gen 1 or after the creation of the male human as indicated by Gen 2?

quote:

---

Genesis 2:19 is where I see the apparent contradiction regarding the chronology of humans and animals.

---

Thank you for agreeing that the contradiction is quite apparent.Now that you agree that the Bible contradicts itself, care to retract your statement that it doesn't?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

dpardo responds to me:

quote:

---

If we had not already been given a chronology, it would be reasonable to assign one at this point. BUT, since we were already given one in Genesis 1, there is no logical reason to assume that we are being given a new one.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?If I were to tell you what I did today and I said this:1) I woke up.
2) I got showered and got dressed.
3) I went to rehearsal.
4) I went to lunch.
5) I went to work.
6) I went to dinner.
7) I came home.But then you ask me again what I did and I say this:1) I woke up.
2) I got showered and dressed.
3) I started lunch.
4) I went to rehearsal.
5) I finished lunch.
6) I went to work.
7) I went to dinner.
8) I came home.Wouldn't there be a logical problem? Didn't I just contradict myself? The first time around, I said I went to rehearsal and then went to lunch. The second time around, lunch shows up and is interrupted by rehearsal. Which is it? Did I start lunch first or did I start rehearsal first?Of course there is a logical reason to assume we are being given a new one. The second description of the timeline directly contradicts the first one. Contradictions cannot be the same thing.

quote:

---

Genesis 2:19 is simply stating how he created the animals and the fowl of the air

---

There are so many things wrong with this statement I don't know where to begin.First, it is not simply telling how. It is telling WHEN. The creation of the fowl of the air happens AFTER the creation of Adam.Wasn't Adam created back up in Gen 2:7? So if the fowl of the air show up AFTER the creation of the first human, how could they have been created BEFORE given the previous rendition of the timeline?And thank you very much for pointing out the "how" of it. Not only does Gen 2 contradict Gen 1 in the "when," it contradicts it in the "how," too. Here's what Gen 1 says about the "how" of fowl:Genesis 1:20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.1:21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.Here's what Gen 2 says: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.So now we've got another contradiction: Gen 1 says fowl were created out of water. Gen 2 says they were created out of land. Which is it?

quote:

---

again, this is consistent with the general-specific theory

---

Incorrect. It actually introduces yet another inconsistency in the narrative.I'm still having trouble believing you just said that birds and whales aren't animals....

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

JasonChin writes:

quote:

---

If it's clearly allegorical, then you can't use its historical inaccuracies as proof that the Bible isn;t inerrant.

---

(*ahem*)What do you think the word "inerrant" means?If it's clearly allegorical, then we clearly have no case for biblical creationism.But the thing is, this isn't like the various stories told by Jesus where he says that it's a story that isn't true but is simply told to make a point. It purports to be the actual way things happened. And people claim that it is the actual way things happened.The claim of inerrancy is that this story is not an allegory.And you need to fix your formatting. Read the instructions on how to format a post, please. You said you would, but you clearly did not. There are two general methods:[quote] and [/quote] will make text like so:

quote:

---

This is quoted text set off by [quote] and [/quote]

---

[qs] and [/qs] will make text like so: Please use one of them.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crasfrog writes:

quote:

---

And "hellbent" certainly describes the outlook of the Oxfordians, at least, who fight tooth and nail to defend Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, as the "true" author of the plays attributed to Shakespeare (even though he died before two-thirds of them were believed to have been written.)

---

You're not kidding. They're even digging up graves in an attempt to find original drafts of the plays.

quote:

---

I don't know anything about the Homeric controversy.

---

There isn't any controversy, really. The facts are that we have no idea who "Homer" is and that there is very little evidence that the works attributed to Homer were all written by the same person or even that the longer works were, either. Like the Bible, these were epic poems primarily carried out via oral tradition and later written down. The idea of a single author just isn't that viable.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!