Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2

You have it backwards. If you want to claim an order other than what the narration suggests, you need a better reason than forcing it to coincide with chapter one.

Exactly. That is the correct default assumption, that the chronology presented in the text is the intended chronology. If you want to reject that assumption, you need a compelling reason. On the contrary, the ones showing bias are the ones who want to shoehorn the chronology in with that of chapter one. I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that chapter two was not intended to be chronological if you can provide a compelling reason.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Of course you can. If there's no clear indication otherwise, the narration is assumed to be in chronological order. That's the way it's always done. It is the rule whether you like it or not.When you read Treasure Island, you assume that they went to the island after Jim found the map. There's no need for the text to say "and then" something else happened. Sensible people follow the narrative if there are no other signs. You're assuming that the two accounts "must" coincide, aren't you? You're looking for ways to reconcile the two accounts, aren't you?

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Exactly. In chapter one, the chronology is laid out by the numbers.But in chapter two, there is no assigned chronology. Everybody has to make assumptions about the chronology. I'm saying that the most reasonable first assumption is that the events happened in the order that they were narrated. You assume that I disagree with you.If you read the thread, I think you'll find that I haven't taken a position. I'm telling you that your approach is wrong. I don't particularly care about your conclusion.In fact, I tend to agree with you that chronology is a poor argument for a contradiction between chapter one and chapter two. I think you've accidentally arrived at the right conclusion by the wrong reasoning.

That's what I'm saying. You're not letting the text speak for itself. There is an implied chronology in chapter two that you're just handwaving away.You seem to be thinking that you can just use the chronology from chapter one. I'm saying that you should respect the text and accept the implied chronology in the narrative.The question isn't whether or not the two chronologies disagree. It's why they disagree.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

That's where you're going wrong. You're assuming that the chapter one chronology is The True Chronology™. In fact, it's just the chronology for chapter one. You're altering what chapter two says to fit your assumption about chapter one. I think the Hebrew scholars would disagree. There are threads somewhere about "created, formed and made" if you care to search for them. As I recall, the words are pretty much interchangeable. That's a perfect example of the nonsensical conclusions you get when you try to harmonize the two accounts.Science tells us that neither chronology is correct, so harmonizing them is a bit of a silly exercise anyway.What you should be thinking is that both chapters are included in most canons, so the compilers of those canons must not have been concerned about the discrepancies. You should be asking yourself why instead of making up your own reconcilliations.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Even the people at Answers in Genesis don't swallow that one. Their article says that:

quote:

---

making a strong distinction between bara and asah in Genesis 1—2 is as unjustified as making a distinction between create and make in English.

---

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

I don't want to waste time talking to you about Genesis at all. I just wanted to point out that even Answers in Genesis know more about Hebrew than you do.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

I accept what the Hebrew scholars say and in some cases, so does AIG. I brought up AIG because, even if they're idiots, in terms of scholarship they're still head and shoulders above you.-------------ABE:I found one of the threads where this was discussed previously: Genesis 1 and 2: The Difference Between Created and FormedEdited by ringo, : Added link.Edited by ringo, : Sopelling.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Are you or are you not claiming that Genesis 2 is consistent with Genesis 1? If you are, you are altering Genesis 2 to fit because the chronologies, as written, are clearly different.You're giving different meanings to "created" and "formed", claiming that things were created in chapter one and formed in chapter two. As the previous thread showed, that isn't valid.Here's one example from that thread:

quote:

---

Isaiah 43:7 Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.

---

All three words mean the same thing. Yes, and the chronology of chapter two is implied by the narrative. "Created", "formed" and "made" are pretty much interchangeable in English too. If your case depends on the precise meaning of those words, you really don't have a case.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

You lifted a finger to join the forum. You might as well lift it again and reply substantively to some of the points made.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

You didn't make a substantive point. You gave an unsupported opinion. You're welcome to respond to any of the points made in the thread but ranting is not particularly welcome on this site.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Posts are expected to advance the topic and be backed up by evidence and/or reasoning. If you think a post is a "lie" or in error, you're welcome to explain why.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

For future reference, when you click the Reply button at the bottom of my post, it links to my post and it looks like you're replying to my post. In this case, you were replying to Theodoric, so you should have clicked the Reply button at the bottom of his post. Also, you can use the Peek button to see how quotes are done so it's easier to follow who you're yelling at.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

On the contrary, parallelism is a common rhetorical device in English as it is in Hebrew. It's often used to show subtle differences of viewpoint but not fundamental differences of meaning.Another example is:

quote:

---

Amos 5:24 But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.

---

The differences are subtle, not fundamental. Isaiah 43 doesn't say anything of the sort. That's just an interpretation that you're putting on it. In fact, that's exactly what it's saying, classical parallelism. Please stop trying to use English punctuation to understand a Hebrew text. The semicolon isn't even there in most translations.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.