quote: Genesis 2:1 refers to the seventh day of creation and in my opinion requires a reading that includes the events in the previous chapter. In my view a reading that treats the events of 2:18-19 as occurring without the events described in days 1-6 from chapter 1 is simply not viable. I am aware that some people think otherwise, but I am not aware of any literal minded Biblicans that do so
That's based on the assumption that you have one continuous story, and arguably placing that assumption above the text. My understanding is that it is widely accepted that there are two separate stories which do not agree. On that view your reading would not even be justifiable.
quote: Yes on your first point, but I provided a textual reason for assuming one continuous story, so I think the argument that I am placing the assumption above the text is relatively weak (although possibly not non-existent). In fact I think the opposite assumption requires making 2:1 separate from 2-18, and arguably that assumption is contrary to the text
It's not contrary to the text at all. There is a definite break between 2:3 and 2:4.
quote: I agree that if the stories are two different contradictory accounts, then I am wrong. But I don't agree that wide acceptance of that means I am wrong because the evidence for the acceptance is simply speculation that is not all that compelling. I am aware that your position is the one favored by many EvC participants.
It's not without textual support - the break between 2:3 and 2:4 for a start. Given your views it is rather odd that 2:4 looks so much like the introduction to a different creation story. The style of the stories is also quite different and I have to say that the second story and it's continuation read as a less polished account than the first, in line with the Documentary Hypothesis.
quote: you've got examples of places where the stories are contradictory to the point where they cannot be read together, feel free to point them out. If they are considered off topic here, perhaps there is an available thread that can be used for such a discussion.
On a plain reading Genesis 2:5 denies the existence of plant life prior to the creation of man, animals do not exist prior to 2:19, women and men are not created together.
quote: I think the most credible reading is that 2-18 simply expands on things that happened both before and after God rested from his primary efforts of creation; i.e. the creation of the solar system, stars, plants and most of the animals and Man. Most of the things I've seen pointed out as 'contradictions' seem to be based on reading limitations into the text that are not required to be there.
It seems to be more a matter of taking it as meaning what it says.
Regardless, for my point it is necessary only that it is a viable reading of the text. And the transition from 2:3 to 2:4 is quite sufficient to justify the view that we are dealing with two separate creation accounts.
I wondered why this was posted in the humour thread since it seemed to be just a mean-minded exercise in strawmanningl. Then I thought about the subtitle and realised it was an attack on IDer "logic". It's still not nice, but there is at least a touch of humour there.
Unfortunately for parents, a teen’s natural tendency to test the limits of independence can often manifest itself in his or her exchanging sensitive information with Russian emissaries for material or other rewards
MYTH: The President’s statement during the 2016 campaign that he could “stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” was a statement of intent or premeditation. FACT: It was obviously made in jest, not to be taken literally, and entirely coincidental.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
(1)
