Correct Karl, that is my point. Sure, you can find ways of harmonizing them, but the plain reading is what you would believe if you just sat down and read it. If anyone sat down and read that passage, the order of "mention" would definitely be taken as the chronology. In fact, as you point out, it is NOT just the order of "mention", but the storyline itself supports this chronology.
The plain reading is that God created the animals after Adam, at least partly to find a helper for Adam (or to show Adam that a helper could not be found among them). Then when a helper is not found, God creates Eve.
To refuse to acknowledge that this is the plain reading is simply stubborn pride and "sticking to my story" because the consequences of NOT sticking to it are undesirable.
And, again, I am not saying that the two passages can not be harmonized (although Luscaspa would disagree). You can say that God created the animals earlier, but just mentioned them later. There is more difficulty with the timing of Eve, since if you stick with a 24 hour day, you got God parading ALL the animals before Adam, Adam naming them all, Adam being put to sleep and then God created Eve all in one day. Sure, it could be, but as you say, Karl, you have to purposefully SET OUT to get this harmonization to reach this conclusion. No one reading the text without a desire to harmonize would EVER come up with that progression of events.
The plain and simple reading of the second Creation passage does, indeed, contradict with the plain and simple reading of the first Creation passage. In order to harmonize them, you HAVE to interpret the second passage in a way different than the plain reading. I have no problem with this.
The plain reading is that God created the animals after Adam, at least partly to find a helper for Adam (or to show Adam that a helper could not be found among them). Then when a helper is not found, God creates Eve.
To refuse to acknowledge that this is the plain reading is simply stubborn pride and "sticking to my story" because the consequences of NOT sticking to it are undesirable.
And, again, I am not saying that the two passages can not be harmonized (although Luscaspa would disagree). You can say that God created the animals earlier, but just mentioned them later. There is more difficulty with the timing of Eve, since if you stick with a 24 hour day, you got God parading ALL the animals before Adam, Adam naming them all, Adam being put to sleep and then God created Eve all in one day. Sure, it could be, but as you say, Karl, you have to purposefully SET OUT to get this harmonization to reach this conclusion. No one reading the text without a desire to harmonize would EVER come up with that progression of events.
The plain and simple reading of the second Creation passage does, indeed, contradict with the plain and simple reading of the first Creation passage. In order to harmonize them, you HAVE to interpret the second passage in a way different than the plain reading. I have no problem with this.
Upvote
0
