What Genesis Two Says

Why would we assume that the language is sequential? That's only one possible way to organize the story. If you really want to make a convincing argument regarding contradictions, I would think you would want to stick with explicit statements.As I read Genesis 2, I don't see a lot of words that mandating a sequence, however, I do see wording saying that God was making animals and then sending to Adam for naming. Quite frankly, that example also seems to be the only easy one.The making and naming language does seem to be explicitly sequential. There is at least a hint that these are new animals, but it could be that God was making copies and bringing the copies around for Adam for naming.But only a few people would feel the need to read that language hyper literally anyway. Perhaps the verses just convey the not so profound concept that God created the world by whatever method, and that humans subsequently named the animals as they encountered them.In other words, the language is only an issue for people like foreveryoung who consider Christians who are not hyper-literalists to be practically atheists.

This doesn't make much sense. According to your interpretation of day 2 language, the ground had always required tilling in order for seeds to sprout. It just wasn't necessary for Adam to do any tilling.Surely you are not saying that Adam was cursed on day 2 or 3. He didn't even exist yet.

Buzsaw,Any fool can see that Chapter 2 does not discuss creation days. Nobody is making an argument based on that point.When the verses say that God did x, then y, that is an explicit statement that x came before y. I would expect that at least some literalists would insist on that such an ordering not be ignored. If you aren't such a literalist, perhaps we can just note that point and move on.In this case the text, at least in the translations cited in this thread, says that Adam had no help meet. God made some animals, but there was still no help meet for Adam. Then God made a help meet.Regardless of on which one of the 7 creation days the above occurred, the text clearly describes an order of creation that is man, at least some of the animals, and then woman.Yes it is true that Chapter 2 silent about a lot of other things that are described in Chapter 1. But if we are only looking for contradictions, we need not look at the things that are not described both in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2.If you disagree, it would be helpful if you made your point by referring to the text rather than tossing around gratuitous slams and accusations that others cannot read.Please leave the testy shtick to me. You cannot pull it off.

To be fair, this Bible re-write is the brainchild of a particular nutcase to whom Jesus appears to be too much of a lefty. Mr. Schafly apparently started Conservapedia because he wasn't able to find enough subjects to be wrong about.I'll admit that I treat myself to the guilty pleasure of reading Conservapedia's pages on General Relativity when I haven't gotten my fill of right wing silliness.