Literalism Begets Scriptural Contradiction: Genesis 1:11, 26 and 2:5-7

[HypnoToad]

I was quoting the ESV. The word used is m'kol and a quick look thought other places it is used tells us the snake was part of the group he was being compared to,

Perhaps you should have looked a bit longer. "Mkl" does NOT require that one is a subset of the other.

Deut.12:10 - "He gives you rest from all (mkl) your enemies." Are you part of the group of your enemies?

Josh.23:1 - "the Lord had given rest to Israel from all (mkl) their enemies." Was Israel one of their own enemies? Did God deliver Israel from Israel?

1Kin.16:30 - "Ahab the son of Omri did more evil in the sight of the Lord than all (mkl) who were before him." Is Ahab one of the people who came before himself? Did Ahab rule before himself?

There are several more passages like this where "mkl" does not require one to be in the same group as the other.

That is the whole point. Are you willing to let the story speak for itself

Of course. I don't know what's simpler than seeing "of the earth" is not the same phrase as "of the field". It's simply not a giant leap to think, "maybe these aren't the same critters."

There is nothing in the story to suggest herbs of the field and shrub of the field are agricultural plants.

Why do you keep ignoring that the plants were absent because "there was no man to till the ground"? What type of plants usually have a tiller involved?

If anything 'of the field' tells us they are wild plants like the beasts of the field are wild animals.

Only valid if you first prove beasts "of the field" refers to wild animals, which you haven't done yet. It's certainly been claimed quite a bit, but no one has backed it up with convincing evidence yet.

That phrase isn't used anywhere in the bible, but 'of the field' is used throughout the account in Genesis to describe creatures of the wilderness. If beasts of the field in Gen 2&3 are the same creature as ordinary beasts in the rest of the bible, there is no reason to think bush of the field is any different from the other times bush is used to describe wild shrubbery.

Again, you have not yet substantiated your claim of what "of the field" means.

If you are going to propose Gen 2 describe a completely different set of creations of completely different creatures to Gen 1, then creating 'every beautiful tree' in Gen 2 means trees in Gen 1 were ugly. Oh all right. Lets be charitable. They were plane trees.

No, it does not. It only states the quality of what was in the garden, it does not state the quality of what was outside the garden.

If I say, "my house has all wooden furniture inside," does that mean no wooden furniture exists outside my house?

When did God create every bird of the heavens?
Was it before he created man and animals as Gen 1:20 says, or was it after he created man as Gen 2:19 tells us?

First, Gen.2 does NOT say birds were created after man.

If I say, "my father built a model airplane and showed it to me when I was five," was the airplane built when I was five? The statement does not require that - it only states when it was shown, not when it was built. The statement allows for the model to have been built any time previously. It could have been built before I was born. The statement in Gen.2 has the same structure - it specifies the time of the showing of the animals, not the time of the making of the animals.

And did they come from the waters or the ground?

Common mistake - Gen.1 does NOT state that "birds came from the water". The Hebrew is "let the waters teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth".

 

[Assyrian]

Perhaps you should have looked a bit longer. "Mkl" does NOT require that one is a subset of the other.

Deut.12:10 - "He gives you rest from all (mkl) your enemies." Are you part of the group of your enemies?

Josh.23:1 - "the Lord had given rest to Israel from all (mkl) their enemies." Was Israel one of their own enemies? Did God deliver Israel from Israel?

1Kin.16:30 - "Ahab the son of Omri did more evil in the sight of the Lord than all (mkl) who were before him." Is Ahab one of the people who came before himself? Did Ahab rule before himself?

There are several more passages like this where "mkl" does not require one to be in the same group as the other.

Well ferreted out I would say Ahab was certainly belonging to the same group (kings of Israel) as are being referred to. Having rest 'from' your enemies does not suggest the rest is actually coming from the enemies. It is definitely a more abstract use of 'from'. The serpent is crafty from all of the beasts of the field is much simpler use, just like the other uses we see in Genesis. The serpent does not get his craftiness from all the beasts, the serpent is from all of the beast, he is a beast.

Of course. I don't know what's simpler than seeing "of the earth" is not the same phrase as "of the field". It's simply not a giant leap to think, "maybe these aren't the same critters."

The story becomes very strange if you assume that they were, God having to repeat the creation of plants, animals and birds, and in spite of the wonders God worked in Chapter 1, Adam not giving names to any of the animals God created in the first creation but only the second batch.

And the evidence for this, the two authors having a slightly different turn of phrase. It is like thinking the kingdom of heaven in Matthew is a different kingdom from the kingdom of God in Mark and Luke, or the breaking of bread in Acts is different to the Lord's Supper in 1Cor.

Why do you keep ignoring that the plants were absent because "there was no man to till the ground"? What type of plants usually have a tiller involved?

I don't ignore it. I love the picture. It speaks of God's purpose in creating the earth, as a home for man, and man's role taking care of the planet. It is equivalent to the creation mandate back in chapter 1. But it is really silly if we try to take it literally. No plant, at least before modern hybrids, required humans to grow. All the early agricultural plants came from the wild.

Only valid if you first prove beasts "of the field" refers to wild animals, which you haven't done yet. It's certainly been claimed quite a bit, but no one has backed it up with convincing evidence yet.

Because the domesticated animals were referred to in the passage as livestock, behema.

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?"
1Sam 17:44 The Philistine said to David, "Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the air and to the beasts of the field."
Psalm 104:11 they give drink to every beast of the field; the wild donkeys quench their thirst.

Isaiah 56:9 All you beasts of the field, come to devour-- all you beasts in the forest.
Hos 2:12 And I will lay waste her vines and her fig trees, of which she said, 'These are my wages, which my lovers have given me.' I will make them a forest, and the beasts of the field shall devour them.
Joel 2:22 Fear not, you beasts of the field, for the pastures of the wilderness are green; the tree bears its fruit; the fig tree and vine give their full yield.

Again, you have not yet substantiated your claim of what "of the field" means.

How are shrubs of the field supposed to refer to agricultural plants when beast of the field are wild animals?

No, it does not. It only states the quality of what was in the garden, it does not state the quality of what was outside the garden.

If I say, "my house has all wooden furniture inside," does that mean no wooden furniture exists outside my house?

No because all wooden can be an adjectival phrase meaning made completely of wood. But the claim is that the Genesis 2 describe the creation of completely separate species to Gen 1. All the beasts of the field were created in Gen 2 and none of the animals created in Gen 1 were beasts of the field. As Gen 2 talks of God forming 'every beautiful tree' then the trees in Gen 1 must all have been ugly. It is a simple conclusion from the very silly idea that these two chapters describe separate creations. Instead they are separate descriptions of the same creation.


First, Gen.2 does NOT say birds were created after man.

If I say, "my father built a model airplane and showed it to me when I was five," was the airplane built when I was five? The statement does not require that - it only states when it was shown, not when it was built. The statement allows for the model to have been built any time previously. It could have been built before I was born. The statement in Gen.2 has the same structure - it specifies the time of the showing of the animals, not the time of the making of the animals.

Gen 2:18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."
19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens 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.

Man was made first then animals and birds. That is what the story says.

Common mistake - Gen.1 does NOT state that "birds came from the water". The Hebrew is "let the waters teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth".

Good point.

 

[HypnoToad]

Well ferreted out I would say Ahab was certainly belonging to the same group (kings of Israel) as are being referred to. Having rest 'from' your enemies does not suggest the rest is actually coming from the enemies. It is definitely a more abstract use of 'from'. The serpent is crafty from all of the beasts of the field is much simpler use, just like the other uses we see in Genesis. The serpent does not get his craftiness from all the beasts, the serpent is from all of the beast, he is a beast.

Yes, the snake is a beast - but is he a beast of the field? We can't ignore the qualifying phrases.

Ahab is a king, but he is not a king that came before himself. Likewise, just because the snake is a beast does not make it a beast of the field.

Also, I never indicated any such meaning of "from" as you suggest - it's not relevent to what's being discussed.

The story becomes very strange if you assume that they were, God having to repeat the creation of plants, animals and birds, and in spite of the wonders God worked in Chapter 1, Adam not giving names to any of the animals God created in the first creation but only the second batch.

It's only "strange" because you're used to something else. Outhouses seem "strange" when you've used indoor plumbing your whole life. That doesn't make outhouses wrong, you're just not used to it.

Further, "strange" is irrelevent. The topic is "self-contradiction" not if it sounds a little strange.

I don't ignore it. I love the picture. It speaks of God's purpose in creating the earth, as a home for man, and man's role taking care of the planet. It is equivalent to the creation mandate back in chapter 1. But it is really silly if we try to take it literally. No plant, at least before modern hybrids, required humans to grow. All the early agricultural plants came from the wild.

Once again, I am not saying "required" what I said was "what types of plants usually have a tiller involved?"

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?"
1Sam 17:44 The Philistine said to David, "Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the air and to the beasts of the field."
Psalm 104:11 they give drink to every beast of the field; the wild donkeys quench their thirst.

Isaiah 56:9 All you beasts of the field, come to devour-- all you beasts in the forest.
Hos 2:12 And I will lay waste her vines and her fig trees, of which she said, 'These are my wages, which my lovers have given me.' I will make them a forest, and the beasts of the field shall devour them.
Joel 2:22 Fear not, you beasts of the field, for the pastures of the wilderness are green; the tree bears its fruit; the fig tree and vine give their full yield.

None of those are required to be a general reference to all wild animals.

You know, I'm not just pulling this idea out of a hat - go ahead and go to Yahoo and do a search on the phrase "creation beasts of the field". You'll find quite plenty of scholarship behind it. I haven't yet seen any that state "beasts of the field" is a general term for all wild animals.

How are shrubs of the field supposed to refer to agricultural plants when beast of the field are wild animals?

Again, because you have not established that "of the field" is a general reference to all wild animals.

No because all wooden can be an adjectival phrase meaning made completely of wood. But the claim is that the Genesis 2 describe the creation of completely separate species to Gen 1. All the beasts of the field were created in Gen 2 and none of the animals created in Gen 1 were beasts of the field.

Your claim is not accurate. I have not stated that no "beasts of the field were created in ch.1." The "beasts of the field" are a subset of the "beasts of the earth."

As Gen 2 talks of God forming 'every beautiful tree' then the trees in Gen 1 must all have been ugly. It is a simple conclusion from the very silly idea that these two chapters describe separate creations. Instead they are separate descriptions of the same creation.

Once again, no, the language of ch.2 simply doesn't say that.

For example, let's say I have a collection of Star Wars action figures. Suppose I have one of every figure ever made. I would not be considered "wrong" to say, "Every Star Wars figure made is in this collection." Does that mean no one else has Star Wars figures? No, that is not a required condition for my statement to be true. It only refers to what is in my collection, it has no bearing on what others have. Likewise, the statement of Gen.2 only requires that all the trees of the garden were beautiful, it does not require trees outside the garden to then be ugly, it simply is not required by the statement.

Gen 2:18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."
19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens 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.

Man was made first then animals and birds. That is what the story says.

Yes, and my statement addresses this. You did not address the logic of my argument on this statement, you simply restated your position - that doesn't exactly validate your point.

 

[Assyrian]

Yes, the snake is a beast - but is he a beast of the field? We can't ignore the qualifying phrases.

What qualifying phrases? When God told Adam he could eat of any tree in the garden, his lunch was fruit he picked from the trees. When we are told the snake was the cleverest of any of the beasts of the field, it means the snake was a beast of the field.

Ahab is a king, but he is not a king that came before himself. Likewise, just because the snake is a beast does not make it a beast of the field.

Just a more general use of the phrase. Do you think the passage is comparing Ahab to the local sheep or cabbages who were there before him? It is comparing Ahab to the other kings of Israel.

Also, I never indicated any such meaning of "from" as you suggest - it's not relevent to what's being discussed.

No you suggest being given rest from all of your enemies makes you one of your enemies. It is the rest that is from all of your enemies, and I was looking at the use of that.

It's only "strange" because you're used to something else. Outhouses seem "strange" when you've used indoor plumbing your whole life. That doesn't make outhouses wrong, you're just not used to it.

Further, "strange" is irrelevent. The topic is "self-contradiction" not if it sounds a little strange.

The biggest contradiction is the way YEC go through linguistic contortions to try to reconcile the two accounts, all in the name of 'plain meaning of the text'. If we are looking at the plain meaning of the text then 'strange' is very relevant.

Once again, I am not saying "required" what I said was "what types of plants usually have a tiller involved?"

No it is the text that tells us the man was required.
Gen 2:5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground.

Another big question is why these plants needed rain. The ground had been completely underwater a few days before, before God separated the land from the sea. When God created plants back in Gen 1, not having rain didn't seem to be a problem. How could lack of rain be a reason there weren't any plants a few days later?

None of those are required to be a general reference to all wild animals.

No just that beast of the field are wild animals.

And if beast of the field are wild animals why should the same phrase used about plants, in an account that just loves to throw that phrase around, refer to completely opposite ideas, beast of the field are wild, herb of the field and bush of the field are horticultural, even though bush is never used in the bible to describe a cultivated plant, always wild shubs in the wilderness.

The problem is you haven't attempted to come up with a coherent explanation of what animals and plants we are talking about and how the term 'of the field' is being used throughout the section. What are the beasts of the field and how are they different from beast of the earth? How are 'herbs of the field' different from herbs in Gen 1 or 'bush of the field' different from bush in the rest of the bible.

You know, I'm not just pulling this idea out of a hat - go ahead and go to Yahoo and do a search on the phrase "creation beasts of the field".

It just means people are talking out of the same hat

You'll find quite plenty of scholarship behind it. I haven't yet seen any that state "beasts of the field" is a general term for all wild animals.

No it just mean wild animals not all of them. However the text says So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens, and that the man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. This is a beautiful description of God creating all the animals, wild and domesticated, and all the birds and Adam being given authority over them all. The idea the Gen 1 describes a different animals created at a different time, not included in 'every beast of the field' is completely foreign to what the text is saying.

Again, because you have not established that "of the field" is a general reference to all wild animals.

Please back up an alternative interpetation.

Your claim is not accurate. I have not stated that no "beasts of the field were created in ch.1." The "beasts of the field" are a subset of the "beasts of the earth."

OK good, now at least we have a definition we can look at. In Gen 1 God creates the beasts of the earth, and according to you this includes beasts of the field. Fine. But Genesis 2 tell us beasts of the field were created after Adam. Which was it?

I think we have to recognise the way these Hebrew accounts describe creation. The do not list off every phylum God created and if a phylum is not in the list God didn't creat it. Instead they pick a few, usually three representative categories, to describe all God created. The list grass, herb yielding seed, and fruittrees do not include mosses, ferns, algae, but that does not mean God didn't create ferns. The verse is telling us God created all of the plants. Bush of the field, herb of the field and trees or every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens... all livestock in Gen 2 are similar declarations of God creating all plant and animals. Did God creat ostritches and penguins? Of course, even if they are not exactly birds of the heavens. But an interpretation that claims one account incudes AB&C but excludes D&E is simply missing the point and ends up denying the accounts descibe God as creator of heaven and earth and every living creature from bacteria to ostriches and giant clams.

Once again, no, the language of ch.2 simply doesn't say that.

For example, let's say I have a collection of Star Wars action figures. Suppose I have one of every figure ever made. I would not be considered "wrong" to say, "Every Star Wars figure made is in this collection." Does that mean no one else has Star Wars figures? No, that is not a required condition for my statement to be true. It only refers to what is in my collection, it has no bearing on what others have. Likewise, the statement of Gen.2 only requires that all the trees of the garden were beautiful, it does not require trees outside the garden to then be ugly, it simply is not required by the statement.

No the language does not say that, it only says it when you make the accounts talk about different creations of different species.

If you said you had a completely different set of Star Wars figures to you friend. He collected all the figures from the first run and you collected the figures when Star Wars was re-released. Now if you claimed you had every Jar Jar Binks figure and you friend had a completely different set of figures, then I can conclude your friend doesn't have any Jar Jar Binks.

It is the combination of (1) claiming the two accounts describe God creating completely different species, with (2) the exclusive statement that God created every beautiful tree in the second account that says the first trees were ugly. The problem is with (1).

If I say, "my father built a model airplane and showed it to me when I was five," was the airplane built when I was five? The statement does not require that - it only states when it was shown, not when it was built. The statement allows for the model to have been built any time previously. It could have been built before I was born. The statement in Gen.2 has the same structure - it specifies the time of the showing of the animals, not the time of the making of the animals.

Gen 2:18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."
19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens 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.

Man was made first then animals and birds. That is what the story says.

Yes, and my statement addresses this. You did not address the logic of my argument on this statement, you simply restated your position - that doesn't exactly validate your point.

The narrative places the creation of animals and birds after the creation of man. What more validation do I need?

It isn't "my father built a model airplane and showed it to me when I was five" It is "I was bored so my father built a model airplane..." The narrative describe a sequence of consecutive events; creating man, then creating plants, then animals and birds, then creating woman.

 

[The Lady Kate]

If you're going to take up a literalist position with both Creation accounts, you have a much more serious issue than the OP presents... never mind the order of creation, or the quibbling over various translations of such-and-such a word... looking at God's actions in each chapter, we're practically dealing with two different characters...

Look first at Genesis 1: God speaks, and *BAM* it happens. "let there be this, let there be that," And it's done.

Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omni-everything. God being... well, God.

Now, look at Genesis 2... God doesn't seem all that powerful anymore...

[BIBLE]Genesis 2:7[/BIBLE]

God sculpts a man out of dust? God has to breathe life into him? Whatever happened to "let there be..."?

Whatever happened to omnipotence?

Now, we all know the rest of the story, right? God makes man, man gets lonely, God makes woman, right?
... not exactly.

[BIBLE]Genesis 2:18-22[/BIBLE]

Wait a minute... to find a suitable helper for Adam, God makes every single species of animal, and not one of them is good enough? God created all life on Earth as part of some trial and error experiment to find Adam a helper? Trial and error? From God? He didn't already know what was and what wasn't going to work?

Whatever happened to omniscience?

And "pulling a rib out of Adam and making a woman out of it"... again, whatever happened to "Let there be..."? Why do it the hard way?

Finally, look at this...

[BIBLE]Genesis 3:8-9[/BIBLE]

God is walking through the garden? God calls out to Adam who is hidden from Him?

Whatever happened to omnipresence?

If a literalist wants to reconcile the two Creation stories as one being a continuation of the other, then they had best explain to me what happened to God between chapter 1 and chapter 2...Because if it's all literal, He seems to have inexplicably lost a good deal of His mojo.

 

[gluadys]

About a year ago, I sat in on a short bible study with a professor of Old Testament studies. We looked at the verbs---only the verbs---in the first and second creation accounts. Most of the "students" were lay people with little academic background present for a conference.

Although there is some overlap, the differences were so startling that someone immediately said: "You would think they were written by different people."

The professor's comment? "They were."

And it goes well beyond the verbs. The whole style and perspective of the second account is quite different from the first, up to and including how the different writers present God. They are altogether too different for the second account to be a continuation, or even a more detailed commentary, on the first.

And that is even aside from the fact that the second account also appears to be the older account.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Once again, I am not saying "required" what I said was "what types of plants usually have a tiller involved?"

6000 years ago?

None. No distinction between agricultural plants and non-agricultural plants. They were all wild plants- plants of *gasp* the open field.

We were still trying to determine which ones could be modified and harvested.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

If you're going to take up a literalist position with both Creation accounts, you have a much more serious issue than the OP presents... never mind the order of creation, or the quibbling over various translations of such-and-such a word... looking at God's actions in each chapter, we're practically dealing with two different characters...

Look first at Genesis 1: God speaks, and *BAM* it happens. "let there be this, let there be that," And it's done.

Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omni-everything. God being... well, God.

Now, look at Genesis 2... God doesn't seem all that powerful anymore...

Genesis 2:7And 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.

God sculpts a man out of dust? God has to breathe life into him? Whatever happened to "let there be..."?

Whatever happened to omnipotence?

Now, we all know the rest of the story, right? God makes man, man gets lonely, God makes woman, right?
... not exactly.

Genesis 2:18-2218 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 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. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Wait a minute... to find a suitable helper for Adam, God makes every single species of animal, and not one of them is good enough? God created all life on Earth as part of some trial and error experiment to find Adam a helper? Trial and error? From God? He didn't already know what was and what wasn't going to work?

Whatever happened to omniscience?

And "pulling a rib out of Adam and making a woman out of it"... again, whatever happened to "Let there be..."? Why do it the hard way?

Finally, look at this...

Genesis 3:8-98 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. 9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

God is walking through the garden? God calls out to Adam who is hidden from Him?

Whatever happened to omnipresence?

If a literalist wants to reconcile the two Creation stories as one being a continuation of the other, then they had best explain to me what happened to God between chapter 1 and chapter 2...Because if it's all literal, He seems to have inexplicably lost a good deal of His mojo.

About a year ago, I sat in on a short bible study with a professor of Old Testament studies. We looked at the verbs---only the verbs---in the first and second creation accounts. Most of the "students" were lay people with little academic background present for a conference.

Although there is some overlap, the differences were so startling that someone immediately said: "You would think they were written by different people."

The professor's comment? "They were."

And it goes well beyond the verbs. The whole style and perspective of the second account is quite different from the first, up to and including how the different writers present God. They are altogether too different for the second account to be a continuation, or even a more detailed commentary, on the first.

And that is even aside from the fact that the second account also appears to be the older account.

Might I kindly suggest, as the OP, than textual higher criticism begin with a seperate thread and allow this one to focus on an already-broad issue? It seems like this debate over the phrase 'of the field' requires some closure because we can continue to talk about the framework interpretation more broadly (I'll start that thread in due time).

 

[HypnoToad]

I was ready to just walk away from this discussion. My antagonist was pretty much just rehashing the same old statements and not quite getting my points, so I was pretty tired of banging my head against the wall. So, yeah, almost ready to walk away, and then I read the last two posts (Gluadys and Kate). Good grief.

Kate, wow; where to begin.

God sculpts a man out of dust? God has to breathe life into him? Whatever happened to "let there be..."?

Whatever happened to omnipotence?

"Has to"?? No, the text NEVER says God "had to" do it that way.

Forming by hand, personally breathing life into - by giving man this kind of treatment, God is demonstrating His intimate closeness to us, as well as man's uniqueness in creation. This has absolutely no bearing on God's omnipotence whatsoever. In fact, the idea that He's not limited to one method of creation shows even greater power, not less.

Wait a minute... to find a suitable helper for Adam, God makes every single species of animal, and not one of them is good enough? God created all life on Earth as part of some trial and error experiment to find Adam a helper? Trial and error? From God? He didn't already know what was and what wasn't going to work?

Whatever happened to omniscience?

More forcing into the text what isn't there. Nowhere does it state God ever thought any of the animals would be suitable. This was a demonstration for Adam's sake, to demonstrate to him that woman would be the only thing to complete him, to demonstrate to him how important and woman is.

And "pulling a rib out of Adam and making a woman out of it"... again, whatever happened to "Let there be..."? Why do it the hard way?

"Hard way"?? The text never indicates any difficulty for God in doing this. As God had just demonstrated the intimacy between Himself and man, this now demonstates the closeness and intimacy between man and woman.

God is walking through the garden? God calls out to Adam who is hidden from Him?

Whatever happened to omnipresence?

Just because God is omnipresent doesn't mean He can't localize a manifestation of Himself in order to communicate with His creation.

He seems to have inexplicably lost a good deal of His mojo.

Only through one heck of a horrible, horrible exegesis.

Gluadys - all I'm gonna say is there's plenty of resources people can look up to see refutation of your statements.

 

[mark kennedy]

Please observe these two texts from the two accounts of creation (ESV):​

Genesis 1:11, 26:
[Third Day] And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so.... [Sixth Day] Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."


Genesis 2:5-7:
When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground-- then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.​

It's not two accounts, the second is an elaboration on the first but let's see what kind of a contradiction you think you have found.

In the first account of creation, God creates the planets, trees, and whatnot before he fashions humanity.

In the second account, the Lord fashions humanity before no bushes or even small plants sprung up.

Probably just a 48 hour period between them, not creating a big problem for me so far.

Here we have apperant contradiction in Scripture. If you do not reinterpret one of them and take both literally, then you cannot maintain an inerrantist position. If one of the accounts is not symbolic or allegorical, then Scripture stands in contradiction to itself.

They don't contradict, the second is an elaboration. God (Elohim or God Almighty) creates the world and everything in it in six days. Then after discussing the seventh day Moses expands on the events of the sixth. Yes God created the plants on the third day but 'no small plant had sprung up'. Let's do it as an exposition:

When no bush (see'-akh a shoot as if uttered or put forth), that is, generically shrubbery: - bush, plant, shrub.) of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up. (tsaw-makh' A primitive root; to sprout transitively or intransitively, literally or figuratively: - bear, bring forth, cause to, make to bud forth, cause to, make to grow again, up, cause to spring forth, up.)​

They were created but they had not started to grow. The language seems to indicate that plants had been created but had not grown because it had not rained. In other words they were germinating but had not gotten enough water to sprout and it had only been a couple of days.

The contradiction is in your head, not in the text.

Can a good six-day YE creationist, whose primary goal is to preserve the unity and truth of Scripture allow such a thing? Six-day YE creationism must be sacrificed in order to maintain the consistency of Scripture.

Based on what exactly because on day three they are created and on day six still had not sprouted. I'm not entirely sure that all plants are indicated here, in fact I get the distinct impression that these were cultivated plants. I saw to need to dig any deeper when you false assumption of a contradiction was dismissed by a careful reading of the text.

It is therefore incumbant on inerrantists to read the passage in such a way as to understand that it is not a scientific text, but a theological text, with purely theological themes.

First of all Theology is a science of sacred doctrine, what you are trying to say is that this is poetic prose with no literal meaning. The historical content is not disturb by a carelessly implied contradiction that does not stand up under close scrutiny.

The only other option is to allegorize the second creation account in favor of the first. I sumbit that this would be sheer nonsense, since the second account is clearly more historical in nature, especially when compared to the first.

No that is not the only other option, you take it for what it says and the contradiction disappears. It is sheer nonsense to suggest a contradiction when you are simply looking at an elaboration. Some of the language is subtle but this creates no difficulty for a casual reader, let alone someone who actually studies the text.

 

[The Lady Kate]

"Has to"?? No, the text NEVER says God "had to" do it that way.

Forming by hand, personally breathing life into - by giving man this kind of treatment, God is demonstrating His intimate closeness to us, as well as man's uniqueness in creation. This has absolutely no bearing on God's omnipotence whatsoever. In fact, the idea that He's not limited to one method of creation shows even greater power, not less.

So why was this apparantly not even worthy of mention in Genesis 1?

More forcing into the text what isn't there. Nowhere does it state God ever thought any of the animals would be suitable. This was a demonstration for Adam's sake, to demonstrate to him that woman would be the only thing to complete him, to demonstrate to him how important and woman is.

Now that's forcing into the text what isn't there. Nowhere does it state that immediately after God decides that Adam need a helper, he begins the completely unrelated task of creating every single animal in existence, for reasons you just came up with.

"Hard way"?? The text never indicates any difficulty for God in doing this. As God had just demonstrated the intimacy between Himself and man, this now demonstates the closeness and intimacy between man and woman.

But not between God and woman. Did you notice that? The early Hebrews cerainly did.

Man is created from God; Woman is created from Man... creating a God --> Man --> Woman patriarchy which the Hebrews, like many other ancient civilizations, were more than haapy to reinforce... but that's a tale for another time.

Just because God is omnipresent doesn't mean He can't localize a manifestation of Himself in order to communicate with His creation.

Something He rarely, if ever, does anywhere else in the Bible... on the other hand, the idea of a powerful, but still limited, God, pops up again in the OT, especially here in Genesis. Would you like to know more?

Only through one heck of a horrible, horrible exegesis.

It can't be that horrible if you were so easily able to replace it with an even worse one.

Gluadys - all I'm gonna say is there's plenty of resources people can look up to see refutation of your statements.

All I'm gonna say is you chose not to name even one.

 

[The Lady Kate]

About a year ago, I sat in on a short bible study with a professor of Old Testament studies. We looked at the verbs---only the verbs---in the first and second creation accounts. Most of the "students" were lay people with little academic background present for a conference.

Although there is some overlap, the differences were so startling that someone immediately said: "You would think they were written by different people."

The professor's comment? "They were."

And it goes well beyond the verbs. The whole style and perspective of the second account is quite different from the first, up to and including how the different writers present God. They are altogether too different for the second account to be a continuation, or even a more detailed commentary, on the first.

And that is even aside from the fact that the second account also appears to be the older account.

That's the theory I've heard before and happen to agree with... the vastly different writing styles make the most sense with multiple authors.

 

[HypnoToad]

So why was this apparantly not even worthy of mention in Genesis 1?

Because ch.1 is focused on the whole creation, not just man. Man is the central focus of ch.2; therefore it would have greater detail about man.

Chapter 3 is the first mention of a "snake" (or serpent). Do you then argue that this contradicts ch.1 because snakes aren't specifically mentioned as creations there? Hardly valid reasoning.

Now that's forcing into the text what isn't there.

No, what I'm giving is simply an entirely plausible explanation of the text in response to your claim of contradiction.

See, your statement essentially was, "x contradicts y, because of detail z."

Now, in order for your contradiction to be valid, reason z MUST be the ONLY plausible explanation. However, I provided an alternate explanation, and one that is totally plausible. Unless you can prove my explanation is impossible, you can not force the text into your view, meaning you have no grounds for stating it's a "contradiction".

But not between God and woman. Did you notice that? The early Hebrews cerainly did.

Man is created from God; Woman is created from Man... creating a God --> Man --> Woman patriarchy which the Hebrews, like many other ancient civilizations, were more than haapy to reinforce... but that's a tale for another time.

Ok, but this has no bearing to whether ch.2 contradicts ch.1.

Something He rarely, if ever, does anywhere else in the Bible...

Irrelevant. In order to be a "contradiction", you must state how God chosing this method of interaction make Him not omnipotent.

All I'm gonna say is you chose not to name even one.

Irrelevant. The fact that I'm not going to do your research for you has no bearing on the truthness of my statement.

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys - all I'm gonna say is there's plenty of resources people can look up to see refutation of your statements.

And most of them present an over-simplified and distorted version of the hypothesis and never engage with either the literary or linguistic analyses of the text. Very similar to the way creationist resources deal with the theory of evolution and the evidence supporting it.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Because ch.1 is focused on the whole creation, not just man. Man is the central focus of ch.2; therefore it would have greater detail about man.

Chapter 3 is the first mention of a "snake" (or serpent). Do you then argue that this contradicts ch.1 because snakes aren't specifically mentioned as creations there? Hardly valid reasoning.

Agreed... so stop reasoning like that. Chapter 3 is a clear continuation of chapter 2... Chapter 2 is not a clear continuation of Chapter 1.

No, what I'm giving is simply an entirely plausible explanation of the text in response to your claim of contradiction.

I never claimed contradiction... I claimed separate authorship.

See, your statement essentially was, "x contradicts y, because of detail z."

No, my claim was... "X is written so differently from Y, that a different person probably wrote it... as evidenced from details a,b,c, and z."

Now, in order for your contradiction to be valid, reason z MUST be the ONLY plausible explanation.

Nonsense... and it's not even the issue at hand.

However, I provided an alternate explanation, and one that is totally plausible.

Plausible only if the Biblical authors were abysmally poor storytellers... which I choose to believe they were not.

Unless you can prove my explanation is impossible, you can not force the text into your view, meaning you have no grounds for stating it's a "contradiction".

Well then, good thing I never claimed a contradiction, now did I?

Ok, but this has no bearing to whether ch.2 contradicts ch.1.

Chapter 2 does not "contradict" chapter 1... Chapter 2 has all the markings of being a separate work from a separate author... set into motion to reinforce a separate set of values.

Irrelevant. In order to be a "contradiction", you must state how God chosing this method of interaction make Him not omnipotent.

Again, I never claimed a "contradiction..." You did. And the fact that God is only depicted as using this method of interaction here is very relevent to the issue of authorship.

Irrelevant. The fact that I'm not going to do your research for you has no bearing on the truthness of my statement.

The fact that you see no need to support your statement has a great bearing on its reliability... it may possibly be true, but I see little reason to chase my tail trying to prove your implausible ideas.

 

[laptoppop]

One of the best refutations of higher criticism that I've seen is a book by Josh McDowell -- Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Volume 2.

What gets pretty funny is when researchers apply the exact same methods of textual criticism on articles written in support of the methodology. It demonstrates that the methods are flawed at their heart.

But probably the biggest problem I have with it is a matter of pride. It puts humans in a position where they are judging Scripture.

 

[The Lady Kate]

But probably the biggest problem I have with it is a matter of pride. It puts humans in a position where they are judging Scripture.

Actually, we call it "interpreting" Scripture. It helps a great deal in understanding Scripture.

 

[HypnoToad]

Agreed... so stop reasoning like that. Chapter 3 is a clear continuation of chapter 2... Chapter 2 is not a clear continuation of Chapter 1.

I never stated ch.2 is a "clear continuation" of ch.1. It is a more detailed account of the sixth day.

I never claimed contradiction... I claimed separate authorship.

Yes, you did claim a contradiction. You stated that 2 is not a continuation, and you stated different authorship BECAUSE "looking at God's actions in each chapter, we're practically dealing with two different characters," (your exact words).

You can only claim "two different characters" if anything God says or does in ch.1 contradicts anything God says or does in ch.2. You didn't use the word "contradiction", but it is required by your argument.

No, my claim was... "X is written so differently from Y, that a different person probably wrote it... as evidenced from details a,b,c, and z."

Slightly different format, same exact meaning. Your "details a,b,c" require a contradiction in order to be valid. You have not established any such contradiction yet.

Nonsense... and it's not even the issue at hand.

Then you simply don't know what "contradiction" means, and you don't know what constitutes a valid one and what doesn't.

And it IS the issue (unless now you want to switch topics). You state that literalists have a problem here because the two accounts can not be reconciled. This is a question of contradiction; separate authorship has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the accounts can both be taken literally. "Literalism leads to a contradiction" is the very topic of the thread. If you have nothing to say about that issue, then save your argument for a separate thread.

Plausible only if the Biblical authors were abysmally poor storytellers... which I choose to believe they were not.

You have not yet presented any substantial claim that the accounts are somehow "poor".

Well then, good thing I never claimed a contradiction, now did I?

As shown above, your stated position, unless you are changing it now, requires contradiction.

The fact that you see no need to support your statement has a great bearing on its reliability... it may possibly be true, but I see little reason to chase my tail trying to prove your implausible ideas.

Well, if you want to believe you're correct simply because you refuse to do any research that might prove you wrong, that's certainly your decision. I'm not sure how that validates your arguments here, but - your decision.

Further, you haven't shown how anything I stated is "implausible".

 

[The Lady Kate]

I never stated ch.2 is a "clear continuation" of ch.1. It is a more detailed account of the sixth day.

Except that the beginning of chapter 2 indicates that this takes place after the seventh day. Why would a "more detailed account of the sixth day" begin on the seventh?

Yes, you did claim a contradiction. You stated that 2 is not a continuation, and you stated different authorship BECAUSE "looking at God's actions in each chapter, we're practically dealing with two different characters," (your exact words).

Right... and nowhere in my words is the word "contradiction." You added that yourself. The author of Chapter 2 chose to portray God differently than the author of Chapter 1.

You can only claim "two different characters" if anything God says or does in ch.1 contradicts anything God says or does in ch.2. You didn't use the word "contradiction", but it is required by your argument.

Do not tell me what I can "only" do. The portrayals of God's actions in both stories are vastly different... there's really no way around it.

Slightly different format, same exact meaning. Your "details a,b,c" require a contradiction in order to be valid. You have not established any such contradiction yet.

Details exist in chapter 2 which are not in chapter 1 because they are not necessary. You have not provided a sound argument why this is so. I have.

Then you simply don't know what "contradiction" means, and you don't know what constitutes a valid one and what doesn't.

I'm not sure what your obsession is with "contradictions," but if you cannot recognize two vastly different writing styles when you see them, then you're not taking your Bible scholarship seriously. It is entirely possible for two separate people to relate the same events in two different ways without contradiction.

One focuses on one theme, and the other chooses to go in a different direction to accentuate a differnet theme. One writes a certain way, the other in their own distinct manner.

Can you honestly look at both accounts -- Chapter 1 and chapters 2-3, and say that they are written in an identical style?

And it IS the issue (unless now you want to switch topics). You state that literalists have a problem here because the two accounts can not be reconciled.
This is a question of contradiction; separate authorship has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the accounts can both be taken literally. "Literalism leads to a contradiction" is the very topic of the thread. If you have nothing to say about that issue, then save your argument for a separate thread.

I never said that they cannot be reconciled. Accepting the fact that two stories have two separate authors is the reconciliation.

You have not yet presented any substantial claim that the accounts are somehow "poor".

Because they are not... so your theory is implausible.

As shown above, your stated position, unless you are changing it now, requires contradiction.

No, you misread it completely.

Well, if you want to believe you're correct simply because you refuse to do any research that might prove you wrong, that's certainly your decision.

I thought that was your own decision?

I'm not sure how that validates your arguments here, but - your decision.

I offered up scriptural backing... you did not.
I now offer a source... you still have not.

Spong, John Shelby. Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture.

I personally recommend Chapter 4: "The Formation of the Sacred Story." It goes into detail about the well-documented research into the Bible's multiple authorship.

Now, one of your sources, perhaps?

Further, you haven't shown how anything I stated is "implausible".

Then perhaps I should've said, "less plausible" than the already accepted theory of multiple authors... why retrogress to a less plausible theory?

 

[HypnoToad]

Except that the beginning of chapter 2 indicates that this takes place after the seventh day. Why would a "more detailed account of the sixth day" begin on the seventh?

Lol, no, the text does not indicate that - translations that have verse and chapter numbers lend to that misconception. Originally, there weren't any verse/chapter numbers - they were added centuries later to incorporate a reference system into the Scriptures. As a matter of fact, a popular view among scholars today is that what we have as the first 3-4 verses of our chapter 2 really belong at the end of chapter 1. So, in the original text, there is no "chapter 2 starting at the 7th day" because there is no chapter 2, there is no chapter 1, there are no chapters at all.

Right... and nowhere in my words is the word "contradiction." You added that yourself. The author of Chapter 2 chose to portray God differently than the author of Chapter 1.

Yes, I added that word, but your position requires that concept, regardless of whatever word you prefer to use.

Yes, He is portrayed "differently" - that does not mean "contradictory" - one being true doesn't require the other to be false. And, as already explained, He is portrayed differently be there are different topics: first is all of creation, second is man's creation.

Do not tell me what I can "only" do.

Lol, "I'm" not telling you - the rules of logical debate are. It's really not my fault that you haven't learned how those concepts work.

The portrayals of God's actions in both stories are vastly different... there's really no way around it.

If by "different", you mean "more detailed", then yes.

You have not provided a sound argument why this is so. I have.

Um, ok; whatever.

I'm not sure what your obsession is with "contradictions," but if you cannot recognize two vastly different writing styles when you see them, then you're not taking your Bible scholarship seriously. It is entirely possible for two separate people to relate the same events in two different ways without contradiction.

One focuses on one theme, and the other chooses to go in a different direction to accentuate a differnet theme. One writes a certain way, the other in their own distinct manner.

Can you honestly look at both accounts -- Chapter 1 and chapters 2-3, and say that they are written in an identical style?

Irrelevent. We're talking about "literalism begts contradiction". If your "different style/different author" argument has nothing to do with contradiction, then stop posting - you're discussing something different.

I never said that they cannot be reconciled. Accepting the fact that two stories have two separate authors is the reconciliation.

Irrelevent as per last comment.