Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2

"She canna take the strain, Cap'ain!""My God man, you're talking about human lives!""Scotty, Bones, please. I'm trying to seduce this green woman."

no. you'd have to see a previous post i think i made in this thread. when i refer to "chapter one" i mean genesis 1:1-2:4 (halfway through the verse). by "chapter two" i mean genesis 2:4-2:24, although the story actually continues on until the end of the chapter four.the dividing point is here:

quote:

---

Genesis 2:4:

​

Such is the story of heaven and earth when they were created.
***
When the LORD God made the earth and heaven --

---

i think i posted my translation above somewhere. i'll refrain from doign it again, but the message is a little more clear than king james english. it says that when god made man, there were no plants of the field. no, i would not agree at all. to be fair, there is a far better way of reconciling the two texts. genesis 2 says "of the field" and is probably concerned with agriculture ("no man to till the soil"). genesis 1 is concerned with everything.however, this is still a naive way of reading the bible. the two stories are clearly in opposition, stylistically, chronologically, and theologically. so there's a mock-up earth somewhere?listen, you're reading it wrong. "earth" does not mean the planet earth. this is a bad english reading of it. a better translation would be "land" since it is only concerned with the land and not the water.and besides, genesis 1 talks about the earth sprouting the vegetation, so you're still wrong.

actually, i know several people on this board that might make that claim.>>Unless you count God as an individual, I've never heard anyone claim this.no, the two running examples we've used, homer and shakespeare, are questioned ALL the time. and shakespeare's hardly ancient.>>There's minor speculation, but never the HELLBENT attempt to disprove traditional authorship.no, flood myths are NOT clearly all based on the same story. some are very different. but yes. all in involve a flood.>>You said earlier that most flood myths involve a man told by the dvine to build an ark, take life aboard with him and repopulate the Earth. That's clearly based on the same story.wow. every culture has a creation myth too, where a god or gods creates almost everything.>>Which I claim as a real event too, so you only hurt your own argument by bringing this up.i didn't say it was allegorical. i said it was making fun of a real babylonian ziggurat.>>If the story's comedic, it's clearly not intended to be taken literally.

Jason, please read Assistance w/ Forum FormattingUsing the quote features makes posts easier to read and follow.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Of Shakespeare? Where have you been? Off the top of my head, I can think of at least 4 individual movements to challenge the traditional (or "Stratfordian") authorship of Shakespeare's plays: the Oxfordians, the Marlow-ians, the Baconites, and the Derbians. But there have been others.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 may believe this speculation to be "minor", just as your average person believes creationism to be a minor biological quibble. Nonetheless, these movements represent significant scholarly discourse.I cleave to the Stratfordian view, as do most scholars. I don't know anything about the Homeric controversy.

Shakespeare's work was artistic, not ancient and venerated like Homer, Aristotle and the Bible.

not if both versions were thought to be sacred. who is this editor that you think he'd think himself worthy to change or delete sacred texts?>>Let me get this straight..........he thought himself worthy to WRITE sacred texts which CONTRADICT other sacred texts.........but not to DELETE sacred texts?

Jason, do you usually ignore suggestions by persons of authority? I have been posting to you in two different fora. Please read my posts and respond that you have done so.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

thus the joke. it clearly doesn't hold up to analysis, does it? um, actually. yes. and it's well accepted in the academic community that shakespeare plaigarized. turns out he just wrote great poetry and prose in his plays, not the plots themselves. the plot he borrowed from other sources. i cited one above, "hamlet" by kyd.similarly, "the lion king" is great animation, but the plot was lifted from shakespeare's version of hamlet. a good portion of them, yes. some involve the equivalent of submarines, some involve fleeing to the mountains that don't get covered. and some, well, some just destory everything and start again.the idea of them being based on some real event is not absurd. the idea of it actually being a global flood is. well, yes, presumably we came into existance at some point. how do you know which account is true?there's a sort of collective conciousness thing that goes on with mankind. at one time, people all over the world were making fat little women idols, with somethign covering their heads and usually more than two breasts. did anyone like this really exist? clearly. i find it funny. don't you? i think you're missing a lot if you fail to see the humor in it.

no. for the thousanth time.genesis is a compilation, not originally a sacred text in and of itself. the "author" of genesis had at least 2, probably 3 sources which were merged into a single text during some unifying period of hebrew history, in order to preserve existing tradition. the best candidate for this time would be during or slightly after the babylonian exile. this explains the babylonian influences.genesis is the work of an editor or redactor. essentially a scribe who compiled texts. this person did not write any of the texts which he compiled, merely copied them.also, according to jewish tradition, hashem, the name of the lord, may not be erased once written. so, no, he couldn't have deleted any of it.

been to an english department at a university lately?also, i've heard thoughts that shakespeare himself might have been responsible for the english wordings in the king james version of the psalms.

Admin, I hear ya.

the idea of them being based on some real event is not absurd.>>Then we agree here.well, yes, presumably we came into existance at some point. how do you know which account is true?>>They all have the common thread of creation........therefore, by the universal account of the most ancient of sources, man was created by the divine.Everything else is just detail.at one time, people all over the world were making fat little women idols, with somethign covering their heads and usually more than two breasts.>>I thought those were only found in Europe.clearly. i find it funny. don't you? i think you're missing a lot if you fail to see the humor in it.>>Perhaps.........but my point is, if it's clearly not intended to be taken literally, then it's clearly allegorical. If it's clearly allegorical, then you can't use its historical inaccuracies as proof that the Bible isn;t inerrant.

genesis is a compilation, not originally a sacred text in and of itself. the "author" of genesis had at least 2, probably 3 sources which were merged into a single text during some unifying period of hebrew history, in order to preserve existing tradition>>So you admit that 1 and 2, in their present form, are clearly intended to be read as one continuous story?If this is so, perhaps they were never NOT intended to be read as one continuous story......and maybe it's the CONTRADICTIONS in them that were added at a later period.....also, according to jewish tradition, hashem, the name of the lord, may not be erased once written>>I've never heard this name.......what does it mean?

no. are you dense? how did you get that from what i wrote? i said they came from two separate sources, and were unified under and editor. ha-shem. "the name." ie: yhvh.