Genesis Creation Stories: Sequence Contradictions?

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the text does not mention the creation of plant life, animal life, or the universe itself. Eh? What then do you make of the following:"plant life" - verses 8,9"cattle" - ("every kind of animal and bird" verse 19, Living Bible)"heavens and earth themselves" - verse 4This scenario depicts earth as a desert, so we shouldn't be surprised that there's no mention of sea life.I agree that this version of creation is not intened as a chronology. There is, however, an ordinal arrangement of detail. But it is fruitless to compare it with the other scenario, for there are far too many conflicting 'facts.'Your concern about the difference between 'cattle' and 'beasts of the field' puzzles me. When I write I don't limit my expression. I might call them 'animals,' 'creatures,' 'beasts,' 'pets,' 'furballs,' or 'members of the family.' Doing so is a literary device which contributes to the poetic quality of writing and provides relief from monotonous repetition.Are you suggesting that 'beasts of the field' were farm animals whereas 'cattle' means animal life in general (except for birds, fish, insects, reptiles, and microbes)?db

In point of fact it is not your signature.It is, however, unmitigated bombast, vain repetition, and just plain annoying.Whatever turns your crank, but if I wanted to stay in the debate, I'd heed the administrators.Or, are you looking for someone to put us out of your misery?db

Isn't that interesting? Earth is a brand new creation, a paradise where everything is "very good." Except, there's this desert where no crops are in the field because it hasn't rained and there's no one to do the plowing.It's a brand new world but there's already this place, this landmark in the desert, called Eden. God plants a garden not far from this landmark, like there's no better place for a garden, a place without rain. Then He puts the newly created man in the garden to do the weeding. Compare this with the role of mankind according to the first scenario (Genesis 1:26-28).To find the 'Garden of Eden,' go to Eden and turn left. It's the first plantation on the right.

quote:

---

doctrbill wrote:- This scenario depicts earth as a desert, so we shouldn't be surprised that there's no mention of sea life.

---

In the first scenario there is water, everywhere, and dry land is brought forth.In the second scenario there is dry land, everywhere, and a river is brought forth.From the get-go, these these two stories are uniquely different. They vary in at least a dozen ways.You have chosen to debate one of them, and it seems to me you are having some difficulty persuading your opponents. Perhaps you can zero in on another of those dozen differences. Perhaps you will have better luck.

quote:

---

Your concern about the difference between 'cattle' and 'beasts of the field' puzzles me. When I write I don't limit my expression.

---

No one speaks ancient Hebrew, but so what?dbThis message has been edited by doctrbill, 11-06-2004 10:24 PM

Beginning at Genesis 2:5 the earth is described as if it were a desert. That garden did not depend on regular rainfall.Adam and Eve were subsequently thrown out of the Garden and into a harsh world of thorns and thistles. 3:18There is no suggestion of the "very good" earth depicted in the first story; a place imagined to be a global paradise; a tropical rainforest, with food on every tree and never, ever, any need to till the soil. In that story, humans rule the world, and God takes the weekend off. Happy ending.In the second story, humans are slaves on the LORD's plantation; in the desert; near Eden. They screw up, lose their jobs, get kicked out and live miserable little lives ever after.Yeah. It's obviously the same story!db

Greetings Prattie,Welcome to the forum.What I will share with you here is a personal opinion, an educated guess for which I offer supporting evidence. As far as I know, this is my own hypothesis, and it is not yet ready for prime time. I am happy to share it with you here, because in my attempt to show you why I believe it, I will be forced to research the text for specific evidences and will be challenged to respond to your objections, if any. And now, here's the dirty little secret: That said, I will address your specific question regarding Cain and Wife. This is what I think I know. Nod is Hebrew for 'wandering.' Thus: Cain went to live in the land of wandering. As I write, it occurs to me that this may suggest a nomadic lifestyle. That seems to be supported by the rest of the story. He was condemned, by the LORD, to be "a fugitive and a vagabond." Sounds a bit like a gypsy doesn't it? But Cain isn't satisfied with nomadic life. He eventually builds a city which he names after his first-born son: Enoch. (Gen. 4:12-16)I would not suggest that incest didn't occur. That it did is plentifully evident. But it is not necessary to imply incest in this case. There were lots of other people around. In fact, civilization was already well established when Adam and Eve went to work on the LORD's plantation.db Edited to delete blooper.This message has been edited by doctrbill, 11-07-2004 03:56 PM

Are you suggesting that you aren't reading a lot into it? It said: "every plant of the field before it was in the earth" vs. 5 It said: "a mist went up from the earth" vs. 6You are reading the Lord into it. I'd call that reading a lot into it.

quote:

---

Compare this with the role of mankind according to the first scenario (Genesis 1:26-28).

---

I see that besides reading a lot into it, you are also reading a lot out of it. For the benefit of those who don't have a Bible at hand (are you one of them?): Here is what it says (RSV), The point being that in the first scenario humans rule. They dominate. They are lords of the earth, not cotton-pickers on someone else's plantation. I'm more interested in yours at the moment.db

I don't disagree with you on this point. But, and not to put too fine a point on it ... this ground has never been tilled, because there is, as yet, no man; so ... technically ... it is not yet 'man tilled ground,' not by Adam at any rate. I was merely pointing out that your accusation, vis a vis: how atheist "read a lot into" the scripture; is something that you do as well. You seem to be avoiding the obvious. Perhaps you cannot see it. I will re-iterate: You seem to be fixating on the command to multiply. I think that is a humorous aspect of the story. Who ever needed to be told?db

Hi Crash,I've been trying to locate a graphic of the original Vulgate but haven't yet found one. We know that Hebrew and Greek texts were written in all caps and run together without breaks between words, sentences, paragraphs, or chapters. I assume Latin was rendered the same way, considering how much the Romans respected Greek intellect.At any rate, it is quite apparent (if one actually reads it), that the first three verses of chapter two are a summary, and belong with chapter one. It is also apparent that verse four of chapter two begins an entirely new "chapter."db