A question that was first presented by Socrates.

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

God was always good

---

Even when he commits sin? God readily admits in the Bible that he makes mistakes. Take, for example, the flood. After it is over, god admits he screwed up and promises Noah that he'll never do it again.In fact, if you read the creation stories of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, you can see a shift in the personality of god. In Gen 1, god is perfect, makes no mistakes, and everything is good. But in Gen 2, god is continually backing up and correcting for things that were done incompletely and incorrectly. For the first time, we hear god say, "It is not good" (in reference to man being alone). Why is man alone if it is not good? Wouldn't god always do good? After all, in Gen 1, god had the sense to create male and female together at the same time.If god always does good, what does that mean when god changes his mind? Since humans are supposed to know good and evil due to having eaten from the tree of knowledge, shouldn't we be able to tell if god is doing good?You seem to be saying that there is no objective standard as to what good is. Good is only what god does and since god is fickle and inconstant, that means there is no such thing as a true "good." Morality is capricious and arbitrary, dependent upon whim.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

It is only a carnal mind that can say, " Even when he commits sin? ". God hasn't sinned, humans have.

---

But god readily admits that he has. Why do you think he made a covenant with Noah after the flood never to flood the earth again?Because he made a mistake. He did something wrong. In fact, the entire reason that god flooded the world was because he realized he made a mistake:Genesis 6:6: And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.Why would god repent if he hadn't sinned? And it isn't like he doesn't still think to do it:Exodus 32:14: And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.God seemingly has the same trouble keeping on the straight and narrow path that humans do. This isn't surprising since humans are as gods, according to god.The law of god is not perfect:Hebrews 8:6: But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.8:7: For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.8:8: For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:You see: Even the Bible knows that if the covenant god made with Moses was perfect, there'd be no reason for a new one to be made with Israel.God directly states that he is the source of evil:Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.Now, it is not surprising to hear the Bible say this because Judaism at the time is a truly monotheistic religion: There is no such thing as the devil. All things come from god and that literally means all things.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If god always does good, what does that mean when god changes his mind?

---

​

Is it not lawful for God to do what he will with his own?

---

That avoids my question:If god always does good, what does that mean when god changes his mind?That is, if it is good to refrain from killing, how can it also be good to kill everyone in sight?Logic, mike, use your logic. If A is good, then ~A is not good. But if god does both A and ~A how can god only do good?

quote:

---

Is his eye evil, because he is good?

---

God repents for the sins he had committed. After all, why would god repent if he hadn't sinned?And since all things come from god, including evil, then yes, his eye is evil...but because his eye is all things, good and evil.

quote:

---

Now in my previous messages, I said that the punishment of the wicked for their evil, is justified by God's righteouss anger.

---

So you admit that god does sin. That morality is relative. That god is fickle and inconstant. That the only reason why anything is "good" is because that happens to be the way god is feeling at this particular moment. There is no absolute.For someone who claims to be certain in your morality, you truly seem to be a moral relativist.

quote:

---

You being not of the spirit, will have it that God is guilty, rather than men.

---

When did I become an atheist? We've had this little talk before, mike. Just because I don't believe in your god doesn't mean I don't believe in any god.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

sidelined writes:

quote:

---

Ok but god did killing in the days before christ so the point still stands.

​

God covets{thou shalt have no other gods before me}

​

God commits adultery through the holy spirit upon Mary.

​

Where does it end?

---

Certainly not with Jesus who at times is filled with wrath (one of the Seven Deadly Sins).How else to explain why he causes a fig tree to whither for having the temerity not to be bearing fruit out of season:Matthew 21:19: And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

mike the wiz responds to Lam...sorta...:

quote:

---

God is good, every good gift comes down from heaven.

---

So you're saying that a thing is good because god says it is good.Thus, there is no objective concept of good. If god says that it is good never to kill today, then it is good never to kill. But if he turns around tomorrow and says that you should go out and kill everyone you see, then that is good.Thus, killing is both good and not good, depending on the whim of an arbitrary, capricious, and fickle god.How Orwellian. If Big Brother says that 2 + 2 = 5, then it does.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

God said in the OT " Do no murder "

---

And yet, god commits murder. Or does the deluge and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the killing of Nadab and Abihu and all the rest not count?

quote:

---

and Christ says to love your enemy

---

And yet, Christ seethes with anger against his enemy. Or does his temper tantrum in the temple not count?

quote:

---

so why would God turn back on his infinite goodness?

---

Because god sins just like the rest of us. He freely admits it.Why would god need to repent anything? The entire flood is a result of god's botching a fix to his own problem. God rues the way he created humans so he decides to kill them all off...only to rue that he killed them all off. Talk about having a bad day...he can't get anything right.

quote:

---

Christ shown us what to do - and spread peaceful teachings.

---

Like killing a fig tree simply because it isn't bearing figs out of season? When it's the middle of winter and your peach tree isn't producing peaches, do you blame the tree?

quote:

---

God only commands good

---

How can that be when god changes his mind?If committing murder is evil, what is it when god does it?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

Instead of quote mining, you should read Isaiah.

---

I have. That's why I know it so well. Did you read my post before responding?We are not surprised to find a claim in the OT that god is the source of all evil. Judaism is a true monotheistic religion at this point: God is the source of EVERYTHING and that means evil as well as good. You can see this throughout the other books, too. The "Adversary" who plagues Job is an agent of god. He is not the devil. Job loses his family, his living, his peace of mind, very nearly his life because god has decided to.

quote:

---

But did you show why God was upset and done the thing?

---

Yes.Didn't you read my post before responding? God made a mistake. He could have prevented the world getting to be in such a state by starting the process off in a better fashion, but he didn't.Suppose you have a puppy. You never train him, never discipline him, and he grows up to be a wild, uncontrollable menace. Of course, the dog is responsible for his own actions, but you are ultimately responsible for not having raised the dog properly. You gave it a horrible foundation upon which to base its life and it is no small wonder that it is now a terror.Thus, you repent the mistake that you made.You seem to be arguing that if god puts a gun in your hand, a gun which you could never have acquired on your own, then he bears no responsibility for what you do with it.

quote:

---

God only turns because Moses mentions Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - it doesn't mean that God is not right, it means that God for Abraham's sake - remember's his covenant.

---

Indeed, the previous covenant was broken.But that doesn't deal with the direct statement of the Bible: There needs to be a new covenant.If god's law were perfect, then there would be no need for a new covenant. All that would have to be done is the re-establishment of the old one. If you and I decide that the property line between our houses runs across this specific location and then I go off and build over the line, it doesn't require the creation of a new property line between us. It simply requires us to re-establish the agreement that we already made: The property line is here.But that isn't what happens in the Bible. A new covenant seems to be required and the Bible clearly understands why: The old one isn't good.

quote:

---

quote:

---

God repents for the sins he had committed. After all, why would god repent if he hadn't sinned?

​

And since all things come from god, including evil, then yes, his eye is evil...but because his eye is all things, good and evil.

---

​

Well, I agree with Christ - that only one is good [that is] God.

---

Non sequitur.Please answer the question:Why would god repent if he hadn't sinned?And you avoid the other point: According to the Bible, only one is good and only one is evil and they are both the same thing: God.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So you admit that god does sin. That morality is relative. That god is fickle and inconstant.

---

​

Well, let's examone what I said

---

Yes, let's. Thus, god can kill or not kill. It doesn't matter. It's always good. If god says it is wrong to kill but then turns around and kills, then it is not a contradiction because it comes from god.Thus, there is no objective standard of "good." Both A and ~A are true.

quote:

---

" Now in my previous messages, I said that the punishment of the wicked for their evil, is justified by God's righteouss anger. "

---

Since when did "punishment" become a synonym for killing? I thought killing was evil. Just because someone has done wrong and deserves some sort of retribution doesn't mean you have to kill him.After all, Christ tried to stop people from killing: He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword, and all that.Of course, that didn't stop Christ from killing...he just did it to life that couldn't fight back....So which is it? Is killing good or not good? If it is not good, why does god kill?

quote:

---

No, I don't think morality is relative

---

Then is killing good or not good?We seemed to think it was a load of hooey when Nixon said, "If the President does it, it is not illegal." Why does god get a pass?

quote:

---

or that God sins

---

Then why does god repent? Repenting is what you do after you sin. Why would god repent if he didn't sin?

quote:

---

or he is fickle

---

Then why does god change his mind? Why would he admit that he was wrong to flood the earth?

quote:

---

God's intentions were always good

---

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

quote:

---

God is good, and if he repents, it's because of the evil of man.

---

Why would god repent man's sin? That makes no sense. Oh, I could see god suffering the punishment for man's sin and I could see god being sorry for man's sin, but that is different from god repenting for man's sin.And besides, you have directly contradicted the Bible. When god repents, it is not because of the evil of man. It is because of the evil of god. Man does something bad. God overreacts and does something horrible (like flood the world, killing everything).God then repents for god's mistake. Yes, it was man's actions that drove god to act, but that is no excuse for god OVERreacting.You don't swat flies with cannons. Your reaction to the fly is understandable. Your destruction of everything in an attempt to get at a fly is not.

quote:

---

Yes, you have shown that God takes the blame for man

---

No, I have shown that god takes the blame for god. Every now and then god screws up. And every now and then, god cops to his own sin and repents.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

The analogy proves you wrong, and the quote from Genesis says the man has become "as one of us" - it doesn't say equal in knowledge of good and evil.

---

How Clintonian."It depends on what the meaning of 'as' is."What on earth do you think "as" means, mike? Didn't we already have this discussion? And on this exact verse, too? I remember it being with riVeRraT, but I may be mistaken on that score.

quote:

---

quote:

---

We are like God in the way that he specifies - the ability to know good from evil.

---

​

Correct, we know good and evil, but only one is good, God.

---

That isn't what the Bible says.Genesis 6:9: These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.Noah was perfect, just AS god.1 Kings 15:14: But the high places were not removed: nevertheless Asa's heart was perfect with the LORD all his days.Asa was perfect, just AS god.Job 1:1: There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.Job 1:8: And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?Job was perfect, just AS god.In fact, the entire point behind the story of Job is to show that Job was, indeed, perfect. God bids the Adversary to destroy Job's life and despite all the wickedness god rains down on him, Job keeps his faith:Job 1:22: In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.Shall I go on? There's more. Even Christ talks about the righteous.Or are we about to get into an argument over what the word "righteous" means, too?

quote:

---

I believe - like the bible says, that God's thoughts(500cc) are higher than ours(100cc).

---

But that's not what the Bible says. It says we have the same engine:Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:What on earth do you think the word "as" means?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

Satan is mentioned in Job

---

Yes, but the "Satan" in Job is not the devil. The devil did not exist in Judaism. The "Satan" in Job is the "Adversary." Any translation of the Bible that tries to make it seem as if the character of "Satan" in Job is the devil is a mistranslation."Satan" in Job is an agent of god.Note, if you insist that the "Satan" in Job is the actual devil, then it is clear that this "Satan" has not fallen yet and therefore the serpent in Genesis cannot be the devil or even possessed by the devil because at that point, the devil doesn't exist...he's still part of god's retinue.Remember, the name of the angel that fell is "Lucifer," not "Satan."

quote:

---

yet Job does not charge God foolishly when satan seeks to do evil to Job.

---

Incorrect.Satan did not seek to do evil to Job. [I][B]GOD[/i][/b] seeks to do evil to Job. Haven't you read the book?Job 1:12: And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.Satan doesn't do a thing without god's permission and order.

quote:

---

Also, satan is who Christ cast out.

---

Again, showing how Christianity and Judaism are completely separate religions. The "Satan" of the New Testament is not the same character as the "Satan" of the Old. In the New, "Satan" somehow morphs into the devil. In the Old, "Satan" is an agent of god. In the New, a duality has been inserted with god being the source of only good and a new character, the devil, created to be the source of only evil. But in the Old, god was the source of both because there was only one god.

quote:

---

The rest of your jive is a rant against God, which is futile, you cannot send him to hell

---

(*chuckle*)I wasn't the one saying that god had good intentions.What you don't seem to understand is that even if someone wants to do good, that doesn't mean his actions really are good. When god floods the world, he is doing it for what he thinks is an absolutely right reason. But the way in which he goes about it, he later finds out, was completely inappropriate. So much so that he swears never to do it again.Why would god forswear to do something he had just done if it weren't wrong to have done it?

quote:

---

Yet, like Job, I will not charge God foolishly - he is the creator of all things, a man striving against him is foolishness, man withers like the grass, back to dust goes man.

---

BZZZZT!Pascal's Wager. I'm so sorry, mike.You didn't think the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

No. Job is dust

---

What does that have to do with anything?In god's own opinion, Job is perfect.Job 1:8: And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?If you aren't going to take god's own word that Job is perfect, whose word are you going to take?

quote:

---

Job repents to God eventually.

---

Yes, but not for anything he actually did. Job never sinned. He thinks he did since god is punishing him:Job 9:17: For he breaketh me with a tempest, and multiplieth my wounds without cause.However, Job never actually sinned. He gives everything to god. And in the end, he is rewarded:Job 42:12: So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses.

quote:

---

quote:

---

In fact, the entire point behind the story of Job is to show that Job was, indeed, perfect. God bids the Adversary to destroy Job's life and despite all the wickedness god rains down on him,

---

​

Wrong on both counts, as Job repented, now why would Job repent if he was perfect?

---

Because god was torturing him. God was lying to him. God was making him think he had done something wrong. When god is angry with you, then it must be because of your sin. Therefore, you repent.But that's just it: Job hadn't sinned. That's the entire point of the story: God points out that Job is perfect and the adversary comments that god has been protecting Job from all harm so no wonder Job has been perfect: He's never had a test.Thus, god decides to test Job and tells the adversary to afflict Job with all manner of horribleness in order to see if Job will break.And he doesn't. Oh, he rues the day he was born, wonders what the hell he did to incur such a reaction, but he refuses to turn away from god.

quote:

---

Satan was responsible

---

Incorrect. God was responsible. Satan didn't do anything that god didn't tell him to do. Didn't you read the book?Job 1:12: And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.Satan only does what he does because god told him to.Satan is an agent of god.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But that's not what the Bible says. It says we have the same engine:

---

​

Wrong, it says we have become like God in knowing good and evil, that's all it says.

---

And what do you think that means?To use crash's example, if I say I can do a highbar routine like Paul Hamm can, does that mean I'm as good as or worse than he?What do you think the word "like" means? What do you think the word "as" means? Do you understand the concept of metaphor? The reason why we use metaphor is because we are equating two things. When we say time is money, we mean they are identical in the quality we are using. Look at the words we use to describe time: We "spend" it. We "save" it. We "invest" it. We "waste" it. While time is not literally money, we conceptualize time as a tangible asset: Just like money.Where do you find any indication that when god says, "as one of us," what he really means is, "only a little bit akin to us but in no way equivalent"?What on earth do you think "as" means?

quote:

---

It doesn't mean we are equal in our knowledge.

---

Yes, it does.What do you think "as" means? It means "equal."Main Entry: 1as
Pronunciation: &z, (")az
Function: adverb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English eallswA likewise, just as -- more at ALSO
1 : to the same degree or amount

​

That's the very first definition, mike: "To the same degree or amount."

​

What on earth do you think "as" means?

​

quote:

---

My analogy of the motorbikes cannot be refuted.

---

​

My bike's a 1500cc. Does that mean I'm as far above god as god is above you?

​

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

We have established biblically, that God's thoughts are higher than ours.

---

But we have also established biblically that a human's comprehension of good and evil is equiivalent to god's.So we have a problem: Either the Bible is contradicting itself, or there is something about "god's thoughts" that is different from "knowledge of good and evil."

quote:

---

Meanwhile, I will read it as it is

---

I'm sorry...what do you mean by "as"? You seem to think that "as" does not mean "equivalent to." Therefore, when you say you will read it "as it is," that must mean that you are going to read it only slightly akin to what it actually means. There is the actual meaning but you are only going to read it "as" the meaning indicates which, according to your logic, means you're not even going to approach the actual meaning.

quote:

---

and not how carnal Rrhain

---

When did I become an atheist?We've been through this before, mike: Just because I don't believe in your god, that doesn't mean I don't believe in any god.

quote:

---

If you have ears to hear, you'd better listen - God is the one who will judge, and has the keys to heaven and hell

---

BZZZZT!Pascal's Wager. I'm so sorry, mike the wiz. Johnny, tell him what parting gifts he has!Well, Bob, mike the wiz has won himself a lifetime of anguish in someone else's hell! Yes, that's right. After spending all of his life fighting against Satan and worshipping the Christian god, mike the wiz gets a reward of going straight to Hades for his hubris. He'll be sentenced to solve a series of puzzles for which the instructions can be read in many ways. Every attempt to glean more information will be met with "Since it would just be a waste of my time to tell you, I won't." Of course, every proposed solution will conflict with something in the contradictory instructions. This being for his continued insistence that those around him are unworthy of explanations.But, he won't get hungry because he'll have an afterlife-time supply of Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco Treat.You didn't really think that the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you?

quote:

---

Did Job repent?

---

Not legitimately. He had nothing to repent. He repented false sins that god cruelly made him think he had committed.

quote:

---

Did God say his thoughts are higher?

---

Yes.Did god not also say that a human's understanding of good and evil is as god's?End of story.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

sidelined responds to me:

quote:

---

I also wonder who it was that hung around long enough to determine a fig tree that still had leaves did indeed wither away.

---

It did so "presently." In other words, it withered right there in front of them.Of course, Mark contradicts Matthew:Mark 11:13: And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.11:14: And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.[...]11:20: And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.11:21: And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.So did the tree wither away "presently" or did it die overnight?I'm willing to let "presently" mean "quickly" such that it was quite obvious the next day that it was dead, but you raise the point I was making from another perspective:Why did Jesus kill the tree rather than make the tree bear fruit? The only thing the tree was doing "wrong" was failing to bear fruit out of season. Especially since right after Jesus kills the tree, he says:Mark 11:24: Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.Now, Jesus was talking about wanting the tree dead. But shouldn't Jesus have wanted the tree alive and bearing fruit?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Nighttrain responds to me:

quote:

---

Well, if you follow Barbara Thiering`s explanation of the pesher technique, the fig tree was the emblem of the Zealots

---

That raises the problem that if something as concrete as a fig tree is not actually a fig tree but is simply a symbol for something and shouldn't be taken literally, what does that say about Jesus?The problem with saying that everything that is "problematic" in the Bible is really just a symbol is that it results in everything being a symbol, Jesus was just a concept, and the Bible becomes a collection of morality tales. That is useful (after all, Jesus uses the parable in order to make moralistic points), but none of us claim that parables actually happened and are evidence of divine providence.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

dpardo responds to me:

quote:

---

The fig tree incident is an excellent visual aid.

---

That doesn't answer the question, though.If the fig tree is a visual aid, perhaps Jesus is, too.Jesus points out that the seed the sower sows isn't really seed but is a metaphor for faith.But that also means the sower isn't really a sower, either, but is a metaphorical device.So if the fig tree is a metaphorical device, why isn't Jesus?And your response doesn't go to the deeper question that has been raised:Wouldn't the better option have been to make the tree blossom and bear fruit? After all, the tree was alive and healthy. The only "sin" it had performed was having the temerity not to bear fruit out of season.Therefore, it is incorrect to claim that the nation "had become a worthless mechanism" because that isn't the right timeline. The fig tree was fine until Jesus came along and withered it. If the political entity became worthless, it is because Jesus made it so.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

dpardo responds to me:

quote:

---

The phrase "it repented the LORD" as used in this context conveys the idea that he regretted making man on the earth.

---

Indeed.You can't have regrets unless you made a mistake. That's my point: God makes mistakes. He directly admits it.

quote:

---

You are interpreting man's decisions to be God's mistake?

---

No, I am interpreting god's mistake to be god's mistake.God made man and could easily have made man to be better.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

dpardo responds to me:

quote:

---

I'm not sure if you are of the opinion that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 give conflicting accounts of God's creation of Adam and Eve.

---

Of course they do. The timeline is wrong. In Gen 1, the timeline is plants, animals, humans (male and female together at the same time).In Gen 2, the timeline is male human, plants, animals, female human.Since the timelines are different, it is obvious to all but the most casual observer that Gen 1 and Gen 2 are not describing the same event.But since the creation of humans can only happen once, one of those timelines must be false.Ergo, Gen 1 and Gen 2 contradict each other.

quote:

---

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 do not conflict. Genesis 1 simply states that they were created. Genesis 2 gives the details of their creation.

---

Incorrect.Gen 1 gives the details of their creation, too:Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.But this is done after the plants were created on the third day and after the animals were created on the fifth and sixth days.The specific detail is that male humans show up after plants and animals.Gen 2, however, places the creation of the male human before plants and animals:Genesis 2:5: 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.2:6: But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.2:7: 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.[...]Genesis 2:18: And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.2:19: 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.So which is it? Do male humans come after the animals as Gen 1 specifically details or before as Gen 2 claims?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!