Are Creationists shooting themselves in the foot?

quote:

---

t is clear from Gen 2-4 that this describes the point of domestication of wheat in southern Turkey.

---

I can't see any indication that it refers solely to wheat. Or even a clear indication of the location.

quote:

---

Therefore, either creation of man occurred there supporting the YEC, or there was a gap, and man was created in Africa

---

Or, alternatively, your "interpretation" owes far more to your assumptions than it does to the text.

quote:

---

Gen 2:5 supports the gap, with the use of the word "generations."

---

I don't know how you get that. The "generations" referred to are the descendants of Adam. The definition offered by dictionary.com that most closely fits the usage is:

quote:

---

If so, Gen 5:1-2 relates to Gen 1:27 and Gen 5:3 refers to Gen 2-4.

---

It seems to more clearly imply that Genesis 5:1-2 and Genesis 5:3 refer to the same individual - since the chapter is about the descendants of Adam, and there is nothing to indicate that the man of Genesis 5:1-2 is anybody else.And I have to say that I am puzzled by your reading of the flood story. Are you seriously suggesting that it refers to a flood that - while doubtless serious enough for the people affected - covered only a single city and it's immediate surroundings, and left many survivors to rebuild.

So you can't find anything in the text that clearly points to Southern Turkey or the domestication of wheat either.

Of course you're ignoring the parts that don't fit.Firstly you insist that the plants referred to are domesticated. That means that wild wheat and wild figs are out. In fact it's really odd to assume that it means domesticated versions of wild plants at all.Secondly you ignore the fact that the text refers to an absence of rain, giving that as a reason why the plants won;t grow. Therefore you should be looking for an area so dry that crops can ONLY be grown by irrigation.

quote:

---

t never mentions trees of the field just plants and shrubs, so that would allow us to look at wild figs.

---

Firstly this doesn't address either of the points I made. Secondly figs grow on trees. And it certainly indicates that it is talking about a range of plants and not just one specific species (or only grasses in general).

quote:

---

Further, and the start, there is no domestic plants but there are wild plants (Gen 1), and by Gen 4:2 Cain was tilling fields.

---

I note that you are ignoring Genesis 2:5-8. Those verses imply that God created man to look after the plants - which you insist are domesticated plants. And those must be included in the plants tat God places in his garden. There's no domestication. In fact there are no earlier humans TO domesticate plants (2:5).

quote:

---

If Gen 2 is all plants, then Plants are created before man in Gen 1 and after man in Gen 2, the Bible contradicts itself. If it is only domesticated plants that are created after man, then there is no internal contradiction and also agreement with science.

---

If we read Genesis 2:5 as referring only to domestic plants there is still a conflict with science. Science states that humans existed long prior to the domestication of plants and that humans did the work of domestication over many generations. By your reading of Genesis 2 humans preceded the creation of domesticated plants only by a very short time and had nothing to do with the work of domestication.

quote:

---

As for no rain, Scientists discusses how people were harvest crops around 11,000 BC, but then the Younger Dryas hit. In the Middle East it was a drought of 1,300 years and far worse than any in historic times.

---

According to you, the verses of Genesis 2 we are discussing refer to the creation of domestic plants - and 2:5 clearly indicate that there were no humans around. Yet according to you also there were humans and domesticated plants prior to the Younger Dryas.
The contradiction is obvious.