Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9175 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,616 Year: 4,873/9,624 Month: 221/427 Week: 31/103 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2
dpardo
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 149 (146036)
09-30-2004 12:28 PM


From the thread entitled: "A question that was first presented by Socrates", we developed a new thread concerning the apparently conflicting accounts of creation.
jar writes:
"There are definitely two different tales told in Genesis 1&2. Not only are the orders different, the methods are different. It is not a case of things being created again, it is that the two descriptions are mutually exclusive. In one, everything is created from non-living matter, dirt. In the other, woman is cloned from an existing living critter, man. In one, male and female are created at one time and the number of each is unspecified. In the other, there is only one man and one woman and they are created at different times. In one, man and woman are created before the animals. In the other, man is created first, then all the animals, and finally the woman."
Genesis 1:26-27 says:
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.
The verses above state generally that he created them.
Genesis 2:7 says:
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.
The verse above gives specific details about man was created.
Genesis 2:21-24 says:
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.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
These verses above give the details concerning Eve's creation.
Is it easier for you to think that the author contradicts himself in the very next chapter than to consider that you may have interpreted it incorrectly?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 1:00 PM dpardo has replied
 Message 4 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-30-2004 1:30 PM dpardo has not replied
 Message 23 by jar, posted 09-30-2004 9:15 PM dpardo has replied
 Message 24 by arachnophilia, posted 09-30-2004 9:25 PM dpardo has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 2 of 149 (146065)
09-30-2004 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by dpardo
09-30-2004 12:28 PM


Just a question, do you accept that Genesis 1:20 describes the creation of birds on the 4th day ? And that 1:26-27 describing the creation of man are placed in the 5th day ?
Do you also accept that Genesis 2:18-19 places the creation of birds after that of man ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dpardo, posted 09-30-2004 12:28 PM dpardo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by dpardo, posted 09-30-2004 1:29 PM PaulK has replied

dpardo
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 149 (146084)
09-30-2004 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by PaulK
09-30-2004 1:00 PM


PaulK writes:
"Just a question, do you accept that Genesis 1:20 describes the creation of birds on the 4th day ? And that 1:26-27 describing the creation of man are placed in the 5th day ?"
Did you mean to say 5th day and 6th day, respectively?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 1:00 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 1:46 PM dpardo has replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 4 of 149 (146085)
09-30-2004 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by dpardo
09-30-2004 12:28 PM


Not a Coffee House type topic
Belongs in the "The Bible...." forum. Should have been processed through the "Proposed New Topics" forum.
While I'm tempted to bounce it back to the "PNT", I'll move it to the "Bible..." forum.
Adminnemooseus
Added by edit: In general, it seems that the "Coffee House" is being used too much, to bypass the "PNT" procedures. People, stop this. May cause cranky moose syndrome.
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-30-2004 12:32 PM

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests
or
Considerations of topic promotions from the Proposed New Topics forum

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dpardo, posted 09-30-2004 12:28 PM dpardo has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 5 of 149 (146089)
09-30-2004 1:33 PM


Thread moved here from the Coffee House forum.

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 6 of 149 (146098)
09-30-2004 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by dpardo
09-30-2004 1:29 PM


To avoid worrying about matters that are essentially irrelevant I'll amend the question to whether you accept that Genesis 1 places the creation of birds on the day preceding the creation of Man.
(To explain the numbering of the days, it depends on whether you read the numbers as referring to the day that has just passed or the dy that has just started. The Jewish day starts in the evening and the phrase "there was evening and there was morning" follows the description of the work, and precedes the number:
e.g:
quote:
12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
Since the evening - the start of the day - appears to follow the work in verse 12 I read "the third day" as referring to the following day with the creative work starting in the morning and descirbed in the following verses)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by dpardo, posted 09-30-2004 1:29 PM dpardo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by dpardo, posted 09-30-2004 1:52 PM PaulK has replied

dpardo
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 149 (146105)
09-30-2004 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulK
09-30-2004 1:46 PM


PaulK writes:
"To avoid worrying about matters that are essentially irrelevant I'll amend the question to whether you accept that Genesis 1 places the creation of birds on the day preceding the creation of Man."
Yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 1:46 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 2:00 PM dpardo has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 8 of 149 (146109)
09-30-2004 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by dpardo
09-30-2004 1:52 PM


OK. What about Genesis 2:18-19 ? Doesn't that put the creation of birds after that of Man ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by dpardo, posted 09-30-2004 1:52 PM dpardo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by dpardo, posted 09-30-2004 2:15 PM PaulK has replied

dpardo
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 149 (146115)
09-30-2004 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
09-30-2004 2:00 PM


PaulK writes:
"OK. What about Genesis 2:18-19 ? Doesn't that put the creation of birds after that of Man ?"
Genesis 2:19 states:
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.
I realize that the verse above seems to be stating what you assert, if you are looking at it from the perspective that it contradicts -for what purpose, I don't know.
If you look at the verse from the perspective that it cannot contradict, then the same verse can be read without incorporating a new chronology into it.
Genesis 1 has already given us the chronology. What is the purpose of interpreting it in such a way that it would be contradictory?
Edit: Inserted a comma.
This message has been edited by dpardo, 09-30-2004 01:16 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 2:00 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 09-30-2004 2:29 PM dpardo has replied
 Message 14 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-30-2004 2:48 PM dpardo has not replied
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 2:58 PM dpardo has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 10 of 149 (146120)
09-30-2004 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by dpardo
09-30-2004 2:15 PM


amazing!
As silly as this sounds this is the first time that the penny has finally dropped.
If you look at the verse from the perspective that it cannot contradict, then the same verse can be read without incorporating a new chronology into it.
In other words, the Bible has no contradictions or errors because you assume that as a flat given. Then when there is an obvious clear contradiction you simple say that it can NOT be there because you have already assumed that it can't be.
I actually, believe it or not, never realized that this was the mind set of literalists before!!
A totally circular chain of reasoning that is so screamingly obviously falacious that I just never managed to see it before.
Live and learn I guess.
And the purpose of pointing this out may have escaped you until now. The reason is for pointing the contradictions out is to help move the literalists off their scientifically ridiculous and theologically weak postition. A position from which they try very hard to do great damage to the educational system of the US (and even other countries). If they kept their falacious reasoning to themselves very few would bother pointing it out to them.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 09-30-2004 01:31 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by dpardo, posted 09-30-2004 2:15 PM dpardo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by dpardo, posted 09-30-2004 2:35 PM NosyNed has not replied

dpardo
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 149 (146121)
09-30-2004 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by NosyNed
09-30-2004 2:29 PM


Re: amazing!
NosyNed writes:
"Then when there is an obvious clear contradiction"
This is subjective, as you have probably already noticed.
"I actually, believe it or not, never realized that this was the mind set of literalists before!!
You may be generalizing here.
"A totally circular chain of reasoning that is so screamingly obviously falacious that I just never managed to see it before."
Is this your conclusion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 09-30-2004 2:29 PM NosyNed has not replied

dpardo
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 149 (146124)
09-30-2004 2:41 PM


If I am presented with a book that is claimed, by some, to be inerrant, should I automatically assume that it isn't and look for contradictions.
Or, should I read it, and when I see an apparent contradiction, study it, ask questions, and make sure I interpreted it correctly?

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Brian, posted 09-30-2004 2:45 PM dpardo has replied
 Message 26 by Rrhain, posted 10-01-2004 4:27 AM dpardo has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 5043 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 13 of 149 (146126)
09-30-2004 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by dpardo
09-30-2004 2:41 PM


Hi,
and make sure I interpreted it correctly?
Can you tell me how anyone knows they have interpreted anything in the Bible correctly?
How do we test that?
Cheers.
Brian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by dpardo, posted 09-30-2004 2:41 PM dpardo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by dpardo, posted 09-30-2004 2:51 PM Brian has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 149 (146128)
09-30-2004 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by dpardo
09-30-2004 2:15 PM


If you look at the verse from the perspective that it cannot contradict, then the same verse can be read without incorporating a new chronology into it.
Genesis 1 has already given us the chronology. What is the purpose of interpreting it in such a way that it would be contradictory?
What way is there to interpret Genesis 2:19 so that it does not contradict the earlier chronology? It specifically states that Adam was already there to see and name the birds when they were made.
Reasoning and interpreting is a very good thing... but you need to let us know what this other interpretation is, and how it can be reconciled with the text.

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by dpardo, posted 09-30-2004 2:15 PM dpardo has not replied

dpardo
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 149 (146129)
09-30-2004 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Brian
09-30-2004 2:45 PM


Hi Brian,
You have probably already heard this but...
First and foremost, you ask God (pray) to help you while reading the bible; he will. The holy spirit guides you.
Second, the material should be consistent with other parts of the bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Brian, posted 09-30-2004 2:45 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Brian, posted 09-30-2004 2:56 PM dpardo has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024