Creation According to Genesis: One Account or Two?

With regard to making sense, the stories don't pass the "it could have actually happened" test either separately or in combination. I don't think there is a default side for which acceptance without evidence is required. I do plan to participate. I appreciate this thread being started. But just making reference to something being obvious is not an argument. I'm going to insist on seeing more than that.As I posted before, there is a textual linkage between Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter two based on the references to day seven in 2:1. Even the use of different language does not prevent a second author from building on a tale by a first author, so the language argument may be persuasive to some, but it is far from conclusive. What I will find more persuasive is contradictions for which the only offered explanations are just plain bad.FWIW, I don't expect this discussion will be overly emotional for me as I am not a Bible literalist.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I'll accept that.
Now, how about a contradiction between the accounts? Here is what you posted in the previous thread: Actually 2-5 says that there were no plants and no men to till them, so the clear meaning is that the verse refers to a time before either of them. I don't see a contradiction there.

quote:

---

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

---

I suppose one way to read this verse is that both rain and man are precursors for plants, but apparently even after plants were created there was still no rain, a point which I think weakens that argument a bit.Then mist came up in 2:6, but still no rain.2:7 can possibly support your interpretation. It describes the creation of man without describing the creation of plants. But 2-8 tell us about placing man in a garden that God had created sometime before putting man there. I suggest that means plants were created before man.As I review various translations, I find some that include prepositions that at least arguabley fix the order of creation. The NIV seems to support a plant then man creation. The KJV suggests (weakly in my opinion) a contrary order.I would make a similar call regarding 2:19 and the animals. The NIV talks about bringing previously created animals over to Adam for naming, while the KJV expresses the creating and bringing as concurrent actions. Other translations seem quite neutral on the order.Commentary I read on the Bible, which is of course primarily from literalists seems to suggest that the otherwise hated NIV is truer to the mark on this point.ABE:Finally, where does the first account require men and women to be created together?By truer to the mark, I mean to express, a better translation of the original wording. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You need to make a presentation of some substance here. I am not going to argue with a web page or with arguments that you cannot make.I'll acknowledge here as I did with Paul, that I find the point about the chapter listings being artifacts that are not important to be a persuasive one that defeats my argument regarding the continuity from chapter 1. However, mere style differences do not render the stories inconsistent with each other. And both stories likely draw heavily from source material. But that says nothing about whether the integration of those stories into the text resulted in any startling inconsistencies. Yes. There is a discontinuity in time over what is covered in the two parts. And...? You are exaggerating the forcefulness of your argument. You really have yet to describe a single thing that provides difficulty for my position that there are no contradictions. If you want to insist that the stories are contradictory, then the best recourse is to point out a contradiction.Among the arguments presented so far, I find the argument regarding timings between the creation of animals and humans to be the most well supported by the text. The counter arguments I have seen to that point, namely that the animals in 2:18 and forward were created after the ones in chapter 1 don't seem to be reinforced in the text without first assuming the continuity we are trying to prove. I'm still doing some reflecting on that point, but quite frankly that point is somewhat academic because I don't see a first impetus to assume the stories are contradictory.With regard to the plants, though, I think it clear that the relative of creation between man and plants is the same in both stories.Do you have anything more persuasive than an accusation of "mental gymnastics" and statements that "it's obvious"? I suggest that you make such an argument and then provide the accusation. Edited by NoNukes, : Clean up discussion re animals. I originally stopped in mid sentence.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I don't have the ability to make a translation. Even the Latin I studied in high school is encrusted in decades of rust. In preparing to argue for this position, it seemed that the only way to reach this position without a 'non-textual excursion' is to assume that the stories are consistent and then to reconcile them. I really don't want to use that approach here.

I'll clarify. I'm saying that simply claiming two origin sources does not conclude the issue about the material that actually made it into the text. The final text tells a consistent story. Is that simple enough for you? You opened a thread and then claim it is my responsibility to convince you to provide evidence? Your position is simply posting a link to arguments that you yourself don't understands puts some onus on me to provide something?I have provided both my opinion and at least some of the reasoning behind it. Perhaps at this point my options are to continue the dialog with other posters.

What I gave above not my argument. It is instead my position. I also provided several arguments for my position based on the text of the Bible. On top of the that I pointed out what I thought were the weaknesses and strength of the argument. I have responded to some of Paul's arguments and my responses have included at least one acknowledgement that he was correct. Anybody can read my responses and see that your description does not match the truth.I find that I don't generally have the need to ask Paul for evidence more than once.

I'm not claiming that 2:4 and forward are an identical telling only that they account describes the same events and is not inconsistent with chapter 1. There is no mention absolute mention of time in the Chapter 2 material, but no such mention is needed for consistency.On the other hand, I don't see a refutation of my point that 2:5 does not imply an that man appeared before plants appear which was what I addressed in your post. Fair enough. But the NIV is not the only translation which takes this position, and a general criticism of the NIV, primarily by fundamentalists does not settle the issue of which translation is correct. Right, but that alone does not make the position wrong. I don't personally have "issues" with the NIV. My wife on the other hand does prefer the KJV. There is not enough detail in Genesis 1:27 to claim that the verse requires simultaneous creation. Read literally the verse says the same day, which of course would cause a problem for someone who insists upon that kind of literal reading of how time passed during creation. In fact, I would use chapter two as argument if I were discussing this issue with a literalist.I consider a reversing of events a serious discrepancy, and I've already indicated that I think your best argument so far is the order of creation of man and animals. I'm not claiming to have countered your argument.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I've already addressed all of this. All translations have errors and impreciseness. Questionable in places does not demonstrate that it is questionable in this case. Surely your argument is not that your chosen translation is the gold standard. At some point one of us needs to make a case that his chosen interpretation is correct. The sun and moon are described as being created on the same day. Does that imply a single event? The text simply does not contain the precision you are insisting on. We may not be able to agree on this point. I think the fact that three of these Days passed during a period of time when there was no Sun is a pretty good hint that the days were not literal, but obviously that is not the conclusion that literalists insist on. I don't believe that any of Genesis, up through the Flood story and even beyond was ever meant to be taken literally.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

quote:

---

New American Standard Bible
The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.

---

Yes, I agree the NASB gives no support to the idea that plants were completed first. It comes pretty close to ruling out the idea that even the garden was planted first, although an extra preposition here or there would have been helpful.

quote:

---

Douay-Rheims Bible
And the Lord God had planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning: wherein he placed man whom he had formed.

---

On the other this translation does provide such support. This I do dispute. None of the translations of 2:8 that I have looked at say anything about any the creation of plants outside of the garden in Eden. Perhaps you meant to refer to another verse?The distinction is significant because it creates an asymmetry for 2:8 respect to our positions. 2:8 refers only to those plants that are part of the garden of Eden. Accordingly, it can be used to demonstrate conclusively that there were at least some plants before man (if such translations are correct). But even if the verse said that man was created before the garden, that does not conclusively say anything about whether any plants outside of the garden existed before man. Okay. Here is what you said. Upon re-reading I find I can take this as a either a specific criticism of this verse or simply an example of smoothing by a known smoother. In any event, you've resolved the issue.Could you point to a specific criticism of the NIV's rendering of this verse? It is quite likely that such criticism would decide this point in your favor, particularly if the criticism included a discussion of the original language that the NIV has smoothed over.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I cannot agree with most of this reasoning.First if a garden does not refer to actual growing plants, then the verse is asinine in my opinion. Secondly, 2:9 does not provide a contradiction. It simply says that there were no trees in the garden. Read literally, only 2:5 presents any issue.Again, I question the idea that every creation event described in chapter one (or two for matter) must occur instantaneously as by a magician "poofing". It is enough that God did what he did during a 'Day' whatever length that turns out to be and that events continued to completion. I understand that you interpret it differently, but I would suggest that using a particularly interpretation that requires a contradiction and then pointing at that contradiction as evidence is not a strong argument. If I start with the conclusion that the verses are consistent, then I can force even the tiniest ambiguity to provide a consistent reading.On the one hand, you have clearly made your original point that regarding a legitimate interpretation regarding 2:18. But to go further and say that the text requires the interpretation is where we depart ways. I am taking the blame for getting this wrong. Perhaps by giving an excuse I made that unclear. I make no excuse here. You've provided a reference. It's on me to check it out. I will note that the quoted portion simply compares one translation to another translation and provides Sailhamer's conclusory statement about the translation being impossible.As for the argument Sailhamer provides that the NIV translaton does not fit, the fundamentalists interpretation of creating animals is that God created and brought animals to be Adam's companions, but that such an event was not necessarily the first creation of animals. That interpretation removes the argument that the NIV and other translations have missed the point of the story since Adam seems to spend all of the time in the garden up until the point where he gets the boot.My own interpretation almost all of chapter 2 consist of grafted on detailed that never happened in the first place, and that chapter 1 is sheer speculation about a process the authors cannot understand. Chapter 1 is short on detail and in fact is so short that questions like 'how much time passed between the creation of Adam and Eve, and was the process used identical simply are unanswerable based on the wording of chapter 1. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes, that's what the verse says. However we did get plants without rain. God provided mist. And also, regardless of what the text says, not all plants need man to work the ground before they can appear. In fact, the text says that God planted some of the plants. So there are your substitutes for the prerequisites.There is also the point that man cannot create plants out of nothing. So if man is going to do planting, it will be of seeds that already exist or are provided by God. And just as babies come from mommy and daddy, seeds come from mature plants. Does the text provide any help with your position on that? You attempted to make a showing using arguments I had already largely addressed in other discussions.We've already established that between you and I, I am the only one who needs to provide any evidence for his position. Since it is fairly difficult to have a debate in such a fashion, I am concentrating on discussing this topic with others.There is no need for you to provide any evidence. I asked Paul to back up his argument and he provided references. I don't think the references where dispositive for the reasons I gave, but I've accepted that the ball is kicked back into my court.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I don't see anything wrong with calling a garden an area with plants in it either. You are simply picking a translation that causes a conflict. I'd say the same thing about your requirement that create means instantaneous poofing of everything named in the verse. I have never interpreted Chapter 1 to require any such thing, so this is not a position I've generated for this debate.It seems to me that we are covering the same ground with mere repetition of our arguments, but getting closer to making personal attacks on the sanity of the position holder. I'm not going to respond to those things, so unless there is something new, I'm left with looking up your reference regarding the translation issue. I cannot get to that right away.

It's not irrelevant. I am pointing out that the text does not support one of our interpretations over the other. I thought that to be important. If in fact that point was already obvious, then perhaps your own comment was redundant rhetoric. You've been insistent that you would interpret chapter 1 to imply simultaneous creation of man and woman. I simply disagree. I'm not going to apologize for doing that one time more than you think is correct.Again, there is nothing new in your post other than attempts to impute motives on very weak evidence. I don't see any rebuttal at all. Can I take that trend as indicating that we are done here?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Mist is not rain. Period. And given that the stated pre-requisite was worked around, perhaps the pre-requisite for man was also worked around. I provided some argument about why I thought that was reasonable. Are you going to address any of that, or are you just going to repeat yourself. That's exactly wrong. The text I cited says that man was placed in a garden that God had previously created. Assuming the translation is correct, then the conclusion is that God worked around the need for rain and the need for man by stepping in Himself.Which leaves you with the translation to attack if you care to do so.The text says nothing about God dropping any seeds, or even a need for God to do so. You are making stuff up. If instead, God dropped some mature plants, then there is no contradiction with chapter 1.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Nice argument. You win.