Genesis Creation Stories: Sequence Contradictions?

Crashfrog,
You write in message 10,
But isn’t the only reason you assume its not chronological account is because if it were, it would contradict the first story?No, the point is that the two stories do not contradict each other. I simply desire that the Book be read as it was intended to be read. It was a common technique as I stated before, to deal rapidly with an event, and then come back and develop a certain event more fully, for different reasons. This literary structure is shown later when the dispersion of the peoples takes place in Genesis 10 and Genesis 11 returns to detail why they were dispersed in telling of Babel. A similar occurrence takes place with regards to Esau and Jacob, in Genesis 25.My presuppositions which you question are not at this point being brought forward through a discussion of the historicity of the events which I have described. Rather the goal is to inform readers of the way certain stories were intended to be read. To do this, I must recognize the literary structure, and inform the unfamiliar of it also.Finally concerning your second point, allow me to repeat that in Hebrew, the phrase ‘beasts of the field,’ is a direct antonym of cattle. If it were merely ‘beasts’ or even ‘beasts of the earth,’ cattle would be included in such a term. That a particular phrase used should seem an odd anonym by our linguistic standards is a fact irrelevant to the language the book was written in, and to a correct interpretation.Kelly J. Wilson

Yet, they so obviously do. In the first, the creation of animals preceeds the creation of Man. In the second, the creation of Man preceeds the creation of animals. That's the obvious and literal interpretation of the passages.If you can't read simple statements in English, then I rather doubt we're going to be able to debate. No need to repeat it. I did, after all, read it the first time.What you haven't done is explain why I should believe you. It's obvious that "beasts of the field" refers to all animals, including cattle. Cattle are beasts, and they are often found in fields. Unfortunately, your repeated assertions are also irrelevant, because I simply don't believe you.

Of course "beastes of the field" refers to all animals......after all, all animals live in fields......ESPECIALLY fish.......desert dwelling creatures........

"I don't believe you"? What kind of weak counter-assertion is that? It seems clear that Crash's primary debating technique is sticking his fingers in his ears and humming to himself to drown out the sounds of arguments which contradict his own.......

I suggest that you two (Rusty and Crash) are haveing a small problem getting things clear with each other.You conversation hasn't really gotten started. I suggest that you both go slowly and avoid phrases like "don't believe you" and commenting on the others ability to understand counter arguments.Ok? Thanks.Just slow down and give each other a chance to clarify what you mean.

Hey, yo, I think Crash wanted some kind of link or reputable source of some kind backing up your claim. Please understand that anyone can make an assertion. However, be ready to back it up if/when asked.For example:I assert that the earth is flat. You can look here for more details.

---

He's not dead. He's electroencephalographically challenged.The longest word in the English language is pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.

In the face of a lack of supporting evidence, it's the only valid one.I can hardly address her support for the proposition, because she hasn't presented any. And since what she's saying seems so obviously wrong, why should I believe her unsupported assertions? I can't ignore what hasn't been presented. She's offered no argument; only assertion.

But that's the truth. She's saying "take my word for it; this is what this phrase means", but I don't. I don't take her word for it because I don't believe her.

Quibbling over the meaning of the phrase "beasts of the field" doesn't resolve the problem at all. Since the text also refers to the "birds of the air", and according to Genesis 1 they were created even earlier.Might I also suggest that if you wish to discuss the Hebrew meaning you should use the actual Hebrew words rather than a translation.[added in edit] Genesis 1:24 and 1:25 also include a word usually used to refer to cattle ("behamah") in addition to the "beasts of the earth". How, then, can interpreting "beasts of the field" specifically as "cattle" help harmonise the two accounts ?This message has been edited by PaulK, 11-01-2004 11:50 AM

My apologies, for this is a repeat message. What follows is the intended message. If this administrator could delete this, that would be appreciated.
KellyThis message has been edited by Kelly. J. Wilson, 11-01-2004 10:21 AM

This is in reference to message 17, the last relevant message. The individual who referred me to this group listed your name Crash among a few others, as excellent debaters. After reading message 17 and seeing how quickly your argument degenerated into an expression of your personal feelings like 'I don't believe you,' rather than real evidence, I must maintain that the individual clearly overestimated you.That you are unfamiliar with Hebrew speech is something that is not my concern. We all have our fields of expertise, and you have made it clear that Biblical scholarship is not one of yours. Having said that, despite certain demonstrations of ignorance on your part, a debate is still possible. One must remember that when you identify contradictions between the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 you are merely parroting that which countless number of scholars have already stated. Yet you and they show a general misunderstanding which I will try to identify clearly.In supposing that after our reading of the English translation of Genesis, errors exist, we ignore the fact that for centuries redactors would have noticed such a contradictions, and made the necessary adjustments. They did not change this, because they were familiar with Hebrew phraseology, even though you are not, and though you may choose not to believe, certain individuals facts remain, and few will be swayed by your poorly articulated feelings. What I identified earlier is not of my own making. Among others the Hebrew scholar, Umberto Cassuto, writes, "If the term beasts had only been used here, or beasts of the earth, one might have assumed that it included cattle as well; but the expression beast of the field is actually an antonym of cattle." (Commentary on Genesis I, 129). Do you question his knowledge in this particular field?I would suggest you become more familiar with that which you are debating, or at the very least, consider what another more qualified individual have to say on the subject. Finally, I care little, whether you will believe what I have to say or not. This means nothing to me, and only speaks of the predetermined biases that you bring to the debate. Your future comments, I trust, will display more caution.Kelly J. Wilson

Thanks Kelly, putting a message like yours is the correct thing to do.We all make the mistake of double posting now and then. But leaving the message makes it clear that the whole thread is still intact with no missing mystery messages.{Added note from Adminnemooseus - We did have one instance where about 8 messages in a row were all duplicates. That was the rare case where I actually did entirely delete the extras. In that instance, commentary from both myself and the message originator made it clear that a bunch of duplicates had indeed been posted. Also, I think the string of "replies to" messages might have been preserved at the replied to message.}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-01-2004 10:55 AM

It's not a personal feeling, it's a statement of fact. You've made assertions; when asked to support them, you simply repeated them as though I was required to take your word for it.Well, I'm not, and I don't. I don't believe that "beasts of the field" is an antonym of "cattle". You've given me no reason to believe it, so why should I? That this is the third time you've failed to provide evidence for your claims is very much my concern, and it's something that I'm trying to help you with. Well, no - I'm "parroting" what the Bible says. Isn't that what we're talking about? What the Bible says? Why should I do your homework for you? They're assertions that you have made; the burden to support them is on you. After all, you did agree to the forum guidelines, which include:

quote:

---

Make your points by providing supporting evidence and/or argument. Avoid bare assertions.

---

I'm sorry that you feel that you're above the rules of fruitful debate and civilized discourse, but that's not really my problem, now is it? I'm sorry that you find my responses immature; what I find immature is your refusal to support your points after having been asked to do so three times. At this point, all you've done is convince me that you must be wrong, because if you were right, you would have been able to supply support by now.

However, it was also pointed out that "all animals" being included in "beasts of the field" was an overstatment.Perhaps you should both try to establish just what "beasts of the field means". In addition, reference to the original Hebrew was made.If there are arguments over the quality of the translation being used it may be necessary to back up to the details of translation or why one uses a particular translation.It seems that Kelly and you may not be as far apart as some people here are. After all Kelly is already saying that the Bible that we have, since it is not the original writings and has, perhaps, had translation mistakes it can't be taken as totally inerrhant. With that agreement in hand perhaps you can discuss the details without so much fuss.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 11-01-2004 11:17 AM

Well, all we have are translations and copies. The original Bible may very well make this all clear, but who cares, since we'll never be able to read it?There's more, too. I think the most devastating difference between Gen 1 and 2 is the drastically different character of God presented. In the first, he speaks and his will is made manifest - he's the vast creator God of deism; creating, seeing the goodness, and resting. In the second, he creates with his hands - he's a personal God, taking an interest in his creation, guiding and nurturing it.It's an interesting thesis to suppose that that was the original intent of combining these two separate oral histories - to demonstrate two aspects of the character of God. I think the fact that they chose two logically contradictory scenarios in order to do that rather underminds that effort; but then, I don't suppose the original Bible redactors could have just made up stories from whole cloth. I suppose they have to work with what they have.