Genesis Creation Stories: Sequence Contradictions?

Crash is one of those guys you love while you're in agreement and hate when you're not.......

She gave you a direct quotation from a scholar of ancient Hebrew which stated her point as fact.......what more can she do to back up her point?Now it's your turn to either make a non-laughable counter assertion or conceed the point.

Which is perfectly consistant with the style of story telling used by the Hebrews in which you give a broad overview of the story and then go over it again in greater detail........

The assertion that Genisis 1 and 2 were originally intended to be read as seperate stories, the first ending at verse 3 of chapter 2 and the second begining at verse 4, is a huge assumption based entirely on ONE apparent contradiction throughout the entirety of both.The second creation story supposedly begins with verse 4, which states "This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." What proponents of this groundless theory never point out is that this supposed second creation story DOESN'T INCLUDE the creation of the Earth.......or the heavens........Meaning that the above verse, far from being the intended begining of a second chronology, was placed there to CONNECT the broad overview portion of the story with the more detailed account. And the heavens and earth are not the only things whose creation isn't outlined in the "second" chronology.......the creation of sea life, plant life and cattle isn't detailed either. I'll tell ya, if this supposed second story was actually intended to be read as a seperate creation story, I think it would have accounted for the existance of small details like the earth, the heavens, sea life, plant life and cattle.But there is one apparent contradiction, I conceed, between the two stories, as PaulK mentioned earlier.......that being the creation of birds preceeding the creation of man. Still, that's a minor point, easily explained away as poetic liscense and/or errors in transcription and translation. It's a huge leap to take that one tiny chronological incongruity and assert that it's proof of dual chronology.

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.

Yep......apart from the fact that Genisis 2 doesn't mention the creation of sea life......or plant life......or cattle, apparently.......or the heavens or the earth.......Other than that, same amount of detail. There's only one bit of contradiction completely confined to one verse, which is easily explained away as poetic liscence or error in trascription or translation........

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

Sure I can, when considering that it's in poetic form and that it's the only part that contradicts......And you still can't get past the little fact that this supposed second chronology of the creation of heaven and earth is missing little details one would expect to find in a chronology, such as the creation of sea life, plant life, cattle and the heavens and earth themselves! Actually, in the very verse you're referring to, there's a distinction made between beasts of the earth and cattle......

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.

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

That's not the creation of plant life.......it's the creation of Eden. And that's why serious Biblical students don't use paraphrase translations, like the Living Bible....... Saying verse 4 is an account of the creation of heaven and earth is like saying "let me tell ya 'bout a story 'bout a man named Jeb" is the entirety of the first episode of the Beverly Hillbillies........ So, what, God decided later on "hey, I should add a few seas, lakes rivers, etc.......oh, and I should fill those with life"........ So far, we've come up with ONE....... You also don't speak ancient Hebrew......

Crash, you're missing the forrest for the trees.......does the time-line of the creation of animals and birds apparently conflict with the Genisis 1 creation of animals and birds? Yes. Can you call a creation story that doesn't include the creation of heaven, earth, sea life, plant life and cattle a seperate chronolgy? No, you can't.

There's no contradiction at all.Animals came first. Then man was the last creation, followed by the more beautiful creation called Eve, cause after her there could be nothing greater created, as they were IN the very PHI Image of the LORDhttp://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/MadeinHisImage.htmlChapter 2 in no way nullifies Chapter 1,Gen 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.Gen 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.Adam was in charge of naming the animals that were there BEFORE HIM, that was his first job before he was told to get busy and reproduce and make love with EVE.Out of the ground the Lord God did form every beast of the fiel, that isn't a new timeline, but a given fact. All animals and us came from the ground which has been proven via chemical anaylsis.Pity thoughwe can't talk about timelines and the crystals of the ground... Oh well maybe in time.Next topic.... as this one isn't relevant, no controversy whatsoever.. IMO