Genesis Creation Stories: Sequence Contradictions?

Why don't we look at all the evidence, then?You get a degree in evolutionary biology from a accredited university, and I'll be happy to read whatever creationist sources you prefer. Of course, I've read a lot of them, already. And that's rather the thing - over here on the evo side, you'll find most of us have read a lot of Johnson, Behe, Demski, Strobel, etc. But its rare indeed to find a creationist with any training or familiarity with the biological sciences. Maybe you've noticed that, most of the time here, we're not refuting anti-evolution arguments or discussing biological evidence. Most of the time, we're correcting someone's catastrophic misunderstandings about basic biology.You'll find that the science-minded don't generally restrict their reading; to the contrary, we recognize that progress in science comes more often from opposition to dogma than otherwise. It seems to be creationists, largely, who can't be bothered to aquaint themselves with the information from the other side.Not surprising, really. It's the folks on your side who believe that exposure to evolutionary science is tantamount to consorting with devils.

But isn't the only reason you assume it's not a chronological account is because if it were, it would contradict the first story?It certainly uses chronological word cues: "then", etc. And look at the language here:

quote:

---

So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

---

See that? Every beast of the field and every bird of the air, not just some of them. It's clear that Genesis 2 is a chronological account of the creation of man, and then, the creation of all animals as potential helpers for man.The only evidence you have for Gen 2 not being chronological in nature is that, otherwise, it contradicts Gen 1. So if it's your argument that Gen 1 and Gen 2 don't contradict each other because Gen 2 isn't chronological, you're making a circular argument. You've used your conclusion as one of your premises.As for this: In what way, exactly? Cattle are beasts, and where would you find them, except for fields? Cattle are beasts of the field, obviously.

It's called "poetic license." "Beasts of the field" is a poetic way of referring to all beasts. It's parallel structure with "birds of the air," which refers to all birds, even though some birds are flightless.It's obvious that Genesis 1 and 2 are poetic accounts, as specific poetic devices are used. In that context, it's ludicrous to suggest that "beasts of the fields" refers to anything but all animals.At any rate, cattle live in fields, which was my specific assertion.As for Kelly's "Hebrew terminology", I haven't seen a single word of Hebrew in her post. Perhaps she could substantiate her assertions? Or maybe you could, since you feel comfortable arguing in her stead?

Yet, they so obviously do. In the first, the creation of animals preceeds the creation of Man. In the second, the creation of Man preceeds the creation of animals. That's the obvious and literal interpretation of the passages.If you can't read simple statements in English, then I rather doubt we're going to be able to debate. No need to repeat it. I did, after all, read it the first time.What you haven't done is explain why I should believe you. It's obvious that "beasts of the field" refers to all animals, including cattle. Cattle are beasts, and they are often found in fields. Unfortunately, your repeated assertions are also irrelevant, because I simply don't believe you.

In the face of a lack of supporting evidence, it's the only valid one.I can hardly address her support for the proposition, because she hasn't presented any. And since what she's saying seems so obviously wrong, why should I believe her unsupported assertions? I can't ignore what hasn't been presented. She's offered no argument; only assertion.

But that's the truth. She's saying "take my word for it; this is what this phrase means", but I don't. I don't take her word for it because I don't believe her.

It's not a personal feeling, it's a statement of fact. You've made assertions; when asked to support them, you simply repeated them as though I was required to take your word for it.Well, I'm not, and I don't. I don't believe that "beasts of the field" is an antonym of "cattle". You've given me no reason to believe it, so why should I? That this is the third time you've failed to provide evidence for your claims is very much my concern, and it's something that I'm trying to help you with. Well, no - I'm "parroting" what the Bible says. Isn't that what we're talking about? What the Bible says? Why should I do your homework for you? They're assertions that you have made; the burden to support them is on you. After all, you did agree to the forum guidelines, which include:

quote:

---

Make your points by providing supporting evidence and/or argument. Avoid bare assertions.

---

I'm sorry that you feel that you're above the rules of fruitful debate and civilized discourse, but that's not really my problem, now is it? I'm sorry that you find my responses immature; what I find immature is your refusal to support your points after having been asked to do so three times. At this point, all you've done is convince me that you must be wrong, because if you were right, you would have been able to supply support by now.

Well, all we have are translations and copies. The original Bible may very well make this all clear, but who cares, since we'll never be able to read it?There's more, too. I think the most devastating difference between Gen 1 and 2 is the drastically different character of God presented. In the first, he speaks and his will is made manifest - he's the vast creator God of deism; creating, seeing the goodness, and resting. In the second, he creates with his hands - he's a personal God, taking an interest in his creation, guiding and nurturing it.It's an interesting thesis to suppose that that was the original intent of combining these two separate oral histories - to demonstrate two aspects of the character of God. I think the fact that they chose two logically contradictory scenarios in order to do that rather underminds that effort; but then, I don't suppose the original Bible redactors could have just made up stories from whole cloth. I suppose they have to work with what they have.

I dunno, maybe, provide evidence?Don't you see that all she's done is take the same argument from authority to the next step? "If you won't take my word for it, take Umberto Cassuto's."No, I won't. If this claim is really true, I won't have to take anybody's word for anything. For starters, she or you could provide unambiguous usage examples from Hebrew literature that show that "beasts of the field" is never taken to include cattle. For instance:

quote:

---

Ezeikiel: "Hey, Enoch, go over there and put the beasts of the field in the pen. No, you idiot! Get those cattle out of there! I distinctly said 'beasts of the field!'"

---

I would find that very convincing. I'd still find it totally weird, but at least I wouldn't have to take anybody's word that the Hebrews didn't think that cattle were beasts that lived in fields, even though they obviously are.Why did Umberto Cassuto say what he did? Without whatever evidence he used to come to that conclusion, I have no reason to give his word any greater creedence than Kelly's. The argument from authority is always a fallacy, no matter what authority you choose. Authorities can be wrong.

We're all like that. Or hadn't you noticed? Do you think you'd still persist in your relentless Kelly boosterism if she was saying things you didn't agree with?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-01-2004 02:29 PM

"Greater detail"? That's a funny way of saying "direct contradiction." You must work for the Bush administration.You: "I went to the store, then I went to the movies."You, later: "I went to the movies, then I went to the store."Me: "You contradicted yourself."You: "No, I'm just going over it again in greater detail."Gen 1 and 2 have the same degree of detail. They just have different details. That's what it means to be contradictory.

To the contrary, the theme of Gen 2 is that the animals were created in a search for helpmeets for Adam. The contradiction with Gen 1 is evident throughout the entire chapter. For instance, verse 18 says "Then God said 'it is not good that man should be alone'". Or, in the next verse:

quote:

---

So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

---

There's no way to reverse the implied chronology of this sentence with anything as simple as a "transcript error."Gen 1 and Gen 2 contradict. It's just that simple.P.S. If cattle aren't beasts of the field, then how did they get named if God didn't bring them before Adam with the rest of the animals? The very next verse has Adam naming "all cattle" with no mention of cattle having been brought before him. How did the cattle get there? Clearly, that's implied in "beasts of the field."This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-04-2004 02:20 AM

Yes, exactly. Genesis is poetry, not a literal history. That's been my point the whole time. Indeed there is.So where did the cattle come from? When did God create them and lead them before Adam to be named?The answer is, in the immediately previous verse, where it says "all the beasts of the field." Clearly, cattle are beasts of the field.

What's the deal, here? You just can't read clear statements in English or something?"I will" means he hasn't yet. As in, he hasn't made animals or any help meets until after he made Man.

Ultimately, yes, it is.But not before God creates all the animals first, and Adam realizes that none of them can be helpmeets for him: At the time that God speaks those words ("It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."), the helpmeets to which he refers are the animals he's about to create, not Eve.