quote:
The word generations in Gen 2:4 still argues that there were humans before Adam.
It certainly does not. Yet another poitn where your analysis fails.
quote:
As for plants, if there were no plants before Adam, not only does that contradict science, but it contradicts Gen 1.
That is irrelevant to our discussion since I am not asserting that there were no plants before Adam.
quote:
To say that the Bible says that Adam and other humans couldn't have bred plants of the field out of wild plants is to argue that the Bible says people today can't breed animals and plants to generate new breeds.
Now you are getting irrational I am not asserting that Adam would have been incapable of breeding plants. I am asserting that the Bible indicates that Adam did not produce the plants referred to in 2:5 by breeding.
Of course all that this is really about is your need to pretend that you are sticking closely to the text. And the bizarre thing is that there is a reading which is at least not scientifically implausible, and does less violence to the verse than your reading. If it is not close, at least it does not reduce it to nonsense. That is, that it refers to the drought reducing the productivity of the wild stands, a reduction that could be countered by cultivation.
As I keep telling you, you are actually treating Genesis 2 as a mythologised account of the events that you presume occurred. If you were to do so consistently you would not be creating such problems for yourself.