What's Best Reconciliation of Gen 1 and 2 You've Heard?

One assumption is that only one historical time-line leads up to our present. My point is perhaps that is not the case.

The problem with your "voodoo time" hypothesis is that it isn't useful. It doesn't add any new information - it only subtracts. You only use it to try to explain away what we already know.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

It's useful if it's true. Just listen to yourself...."what we already know", hey, just forget the facts, we know it already. It's a matter of faith with us!You evos are some of most faith-based bunches of folks on the planet, which wouldn't be so bad if you just admitted it, but alas, that's not to be.

What the hell are you talking about?"What we already know" is the facts.I was just saying that your voodoo time hypothesis throws out the facts that you don't like. That's it's only purpose.If you had any facts of your own, you could present them. Instead, all you ever present is creationist junk websites. Your only response to the actual facts is to make up mumbo-jumbo excuses to ignore them.Now, do you have a reconcilliation of Genesis 1 and 2 that doesn't depend on throwing out the facts?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

So if someone gives an overview of a story in the introduction, then goes into detail later, what does that have to do with chronology?

I don't see any contradictions at all between Genesis 1 and 2. What you call voodoo time is based on something called relativity.Basically, if all space-time is one thing, there is no reason, imo, for it not to fluctuate and change within the expanse of itself, perhaps lengthening and contracting, changing from one sort of frequency to another, etc,...Another way to look at it is this. The earth is not a sphere hanging in space, but a streak through space-time. I think an evo here made that comment. Now, why would one point on that streak or pole not be connected to the other point?

Then do you see any contradiction between Genesis 1 and Judges 17? Or Matthew 24? Because if relativity or quantum mechanics can unravel the past in any way you want, everything becomes pretty meaningless.How do you know that Genesis didn't just "poof" into the Bible five minutes ago? How do you know that the idea of Genesis didn't just "poof" into your brain last week?As I have said before, your "adjustable past" notion is useless because you can draw whatever conclusions you want. Therefore, your conclusions are equally useless.There has to be some basis in reality. There has to be something "solid" or we just don't know anything. If you can "poof" away the contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, what prevents the whole Bible just "poofing" away?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Useless is not well-defined by you here. I would say understanding the basic mechanisms of space and time are very useful. Just because as we dig a little deeper, our notions change does not mean the discoveries are not useful. If discover, as I think we already have to a certain extent, that time is relative, and present and future events can have some causal effects in the past, then that could be extremely useful.For example, we could potentially exploit such a small causal effect in creating quantum computers where the calculations essentially use time in the past to do their calculations and thereby increasing the computing power immensely to what would appear to us at superluminal speeds.But it may be that they are not useful for arguing for evolution. If that's what you mean, well, that's just too bad.This message has been edited by randman, 12-07-2005 02:52 AM

"Useless" is defined in terms of the topic: a reconcilliation between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.I don't care if you can build a magic quantum "poofing" machine. And I don't care if you can "poof" or "dispoof" evolution.I am saying that your "poofistry" is useless for explaining the contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. They are supposedly describing the same events but they describe them in a different order.Even if quantum mechanics can "poof" the past into a different past, how can it "poof" the same incident into two different histories?Your argument makes a mockery of the entire study of history. Maybe in another "poof" the South won the Civil War. Maybe the Declaration of Independence was never written and the good ol' US of A is just a "poof" of our imaginations. Maybe Jesus died on the cross in one "poof" and was pardoned by Pilate in another simultaneous "poof". Where oh where will all the "poofing" end?And even if Genesis 1 was one "poof" and Genesis 2 was a different "poof" of the same event, why did the author(s) of Genesis see two different "poofs"? If one author, why (and how) would he see two different "poofs"? If multiple authors, why would they see different "poofs"?Do you still not see why I say your "poofology" produces more questions than answers?Edited to add more "poofs".

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

I've just read through most of the posts here, and I think I am understanding the arguments on all sides (there do seem to be more than two).1. That Genesis 1 is the original account, and Genesis 2 is more detailed:This seems to fit only if we are to look at the creation of Man and Woman. It says in Gen 1:27

quote:

---

Gen 1:27 -- So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

---

Later in Gen 2:7 and 2:21-23 we see it a different way (which could very well simply be a more detailed account as far as the creation of man and woman is concerned)

quote:

---

Gen 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.

---

quote:

---

Gen 2:21 -- 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; (22) And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. (23) And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

---

This is correct; there is no way that an argument could be made saying these two are contradictory. So, the creation of Man and that of Woman does not contradict.2. Genesis 1 is a vague account stating more so "how" than "why" were created Man, Woman, and the animals. Genesis 2 is more detailed in the "why" than in the "how".

quote:

---

Gen 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. (23) And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. (24) 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. (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. (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. (27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (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. (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. (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. (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.

---

It's rather clear that Gen 1 cannot be a more vague recollection of the events, because it states days (which give a clear chronology). We see that the fowl were created on the fifth day. It also says very little about the "how", other than that it happened because God said for it to happen. Of course, it does also offer up some hint as to "why", somewhat because "it was good."3.

quote:

---

Gen 2:8 -- And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

---

This tells us that the garden of Eden was made after Man, from the statement "had formed."We can also conclude that when, in Gen 2:5, it says: "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew..." that another contradiction is made. Because at this point (before the planting of Eden) all the plants had been "in the earth." Yet, this cannot be so, because when God decides to plant the garden of Eden, it becomes apparent that all the plants weren't actually in the earth. This is actually a contradiction within Gen 2, and doesn't cross the two chapters.But now it does get exciting, for more problems arise in trying to settle this difference. It can go (as far as I could see):1 - Eden was created along with the rest of the plants.
This works, except it would mean that Man would have had to have been created before the plants, though Gen 1 clearly states it differently.
2 - Gen 2:8 is wrong, and all the plants had not yet been created.
This seems to be the one which leads to the least problems.You can all think of that one, but I will be getting back to the main point here.So after the creation of Eden, there is a description of it. Then, Gen 2:18, God realizes man is alone.

quote:

---

Gen 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.

---

The key here is the word "alone." It tells us that Man was the only of the living creatures. This is further supported when, in Gen 2:19, it states:

quote:

---

Gen 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.

---

It would not be needed for God to create the creatures from the ground if they already existed, He would simply need to bring them to Man. On the other hand, if He had previously made the creatures, but they were running everywhere and He wanted those animals to be in Eden so Man could name them; then He could have created them there, but would not have had to bring them to Man. Simply, it cannot be both, UNLESS, God created the animals wherever they would pop up, and then brought them to Man. But if God already had animals all over the place and needed to bring them to Man, why make a bunch more just so He would have to bring those to Man?And do not forget what I pointed out about the fowl. In Gen 1, they were created in the fifth day, while the rest of the animals were created in the sixth day. However, in Gen 2, it says that both were created together. Once again, we have another contradiction.From this, comes following conclusion: It is not possible to read the first two chapters of Genesis in a literal and logical manner! This seems to be the third argument I've seen, and the one with which I agree.TrékEdit: Corrected gramatical errors and added "3." to clarify the beginning of the third argument.This message has been edited by Trékuhrid, 01/02/2006 04:56 AM

But Gen 1 simply cannot be the overview, nor can Gen 2. Both add details to different parts of the story, except the creation of Man and animals. Here, they give details to the same part of the story, however their details differ SIGNIFICANTLY!I have more detail in my post above.Trék

IMO, Genesis 1 and 2 are not meant to be reconciled.Genesis 2 is starting at 2:4b is considered to be written first, probably by a priest from Judah.Genesis 1 which ends at 2:3 is considered to be written much later after the fall of the Northern Kingdom.Genesis 1 was written as an alternative to Genesis 2 as a creation story. The Priest took out the magic parts. Bare bones creation and it brought in the reason for the Sabbath..Genesis 1 is the product of a different cultural timeframe than Genesis 2 and not meant to reside together.

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

Is this all your opinion, or is it supported with evidence?Please elaborate, as what you've said so far is rather interesting.Trék

slight correction. genesis 1 actually ends at 2:4 also. the split is right down the middle of the verse:

quote:

---

Genesis 2:3-5 (JPS)

​

³And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, because on it God ceased from all work of the creation that He had done. ⁴Such is the story of the heaven and earth when they were created.

​

When the LORD God made earth and heaven -- ⁵when no shrub of the field was yet on the earth and no grasses of the field had yet sprouted, because the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil, ...

---

the first bit is the elohist {e}. the second is the yahwist {j}. the shift from "god" to "lord god" is pretty evident here, as is the change in focus. the yahwist is largely concerned with personal and specific creation, and where the jews come from (and thus is probably from judah like you said, iirc). the elohist is concerned with universal creation (and thus is probably later, and maybe from israel. maybe.)

quote:

---

Genesis 5:1-2 (Old JPS)

​

¹This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him; ² male and female created He them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

---

{p} seems to be looking at {e} in some places, so they get easily confused. {p} seems mostly concerned with who fathered whom. also seems to be a later tradition. this is certainly true. but people do reconcile precisely because they are about different things. this is probably also the reason all three were included -- they were important for different reasons. and contained different "truths."

---

אָרַח

in some respects gen 1 is an overview. it presents a broader scope for the story. it's not so much more or less detail, but a different focus. gen 1 is concerned with the universe (in the limit hebrew sense) and gen 2 is concerned with humanity (or, at least the father of the hebrews).

---

אָרַח