What Genesis Two Says

I've checked the link you provided to Percy's post and, as Catholic Scientists says, his point was that the order of creation given in Genesis 1 is different from the order given in Genesis 2.The fact that both are supposedly sequential is in the surrouding text giving reasons for the creation of man and animals. So right there God made man AFTER he made animals to rule over the already created animals. And here we can see that man was created first and the animals were created so he wasn't alone.By giving this reason in Genesis 2, the text must be sequential. If the animals were created because man was alone and it wasn't good for him to be alone, that explicitly states that the order is man then animals. Yet in Genesis 1 the animals were already there when man was created, so he couldn't have been alone and needing animals.That's the contradiction that Percy was highlighting in his post. The reasoning given in the two chapters shows that the creation order of man and animals in each chapter is sequential, otherwise the reasoning stated makes no sense at all.So there's my evidence for this part of the two accounts being sequential - the language used in the accounts. What evidence do you have that they're not sequential?

I have to agree with you, PaulK. The problem we have here is that the KJV and the NIV seem to be saying different things. It might be a small change grammatically, but it makes a huge difference to the meaning.This has some unfortunate implications for biblical inerrancy - which version is right?

Oh, but in this case "supposedly" does cut it. The language around the account in Gen 1 makes it clear that it is supposedly sequential - i.e., that's what it purports to be. The language around the account in Gen 2 makes it clear it is supposedly sequential.The reason that "supposedly" does cut it is that both can't be right and yet the language of both make it clear that the story is being told sequentially. So which one is is right out of the two supposedly sequential stories?

Buz, you should be dealing with the argument I made that the language of Gen 1 and Gen 2 make both accounts sequential and therefore contradictory. Instead, all you've done is say "You're wrong, Gen 2 is not sequential." We already know you think that, so repeating it doesn't really help.You need to deal with statements which describe a situation which God notices, doesn't like and then goes about sorting. That is, by necessity, sequential. It makes no sense to claim that God made animals then made man then saw man was alone so made animals. If animals were the solution to the alone problem, there couldn't already be animals, otherwise there would be no alone problem.So yes, while Gen 2 doesn't list what was done on what day as Gen 1 does, the language used demands a sequential understanding. Can you explain to me how in this description the first happening is "Joe painted it green". "Joe X painted X pink then Joe noticed X was too pink so Joe says X is too pink I will paint it green then Joe painted it green"That statemet doesn't have a list of time points when each thing happened, yet it's clearly sequential based on the language used. If he'd made it green as an initial starting point, he'd never have "noticed" it was too pink, he'd never have stated it was "too pink" and he wouldn't have had to paint it green to solve the pinkness problem. You seem to be suggesting that it isn't sequential, therefore the first happening could be that Joe painted X green. That is completely illogical, ignores the grammar, the context and what the words actually say.The reason we are "straining at these gnats" is because it's the subject of the thread. Fulfiled prophesies and archaelogical evidence are not the topic of this thread, as you should know, since you started it and gave it the title "What Genesis Two Says". So deal with the content of my post instead of just parroting that "it's not sequential" when it clearly is, or complaining that we're not dealing with off-topic material.

You've got some nerve, I'll give you that. Even after this whinge, instead of dealing with the substance of my post Message 28 all you've done is hit the jeer button. Please deal with the substance of the post, that's what this site is for - debating viewpoints - it's not "Jeerwars".