Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2

no. are you dense? how did you get that from what i wrote? i said they came from two separate sources, and were unified under and editor. ha-shem. "the name." ie: yhvh.

no, you have to reply to the admin's message, not mine. use the little-red-reply-button under the appropraite post.also, quotes are best done by surrounding the quoted material with [quote] or [qs], and [/quote] or [/qs] to signify the end of the quote.

not exactly. i don't believe some extreme world-wide flood actually happened. which i said directly following that statement. yet we arguing over details in genesis. if it's "just detail" what does it matter? i'm pretty sure they've been found as far as africa and china. but even if it's just europe, so what? there's thousands on examples of society as a whole going in one direction or another for no adequately explained reason. circular logic is my forte.the next statement goes: "and if the bible is inerrant, then it must be factually correct." no, if it's what you're calling allegorical, then factuality simply doesn't matter. details don't matter. and that's fine, but you can't turn around and say "that makes it right." because it doesn't.if we're gonna read it as literature, that's cool. it's got good stories. if we're gonna read it as a record of history, it fails brilliantly.if i turned in a history paper that plaigarized my sources without so much as credit, inconsistent details, dates and chronologies, and blatant contradictions and absurdities, my teacher would fail me. not on the paper, for the class.

no, yhvh is the proper name of god. its vowels have been lost because ancient hebrew was not written with vowels, only consonant.in english it is rendered "yahweh" by some. when vowel pointings were added to the text, the vowels for adonai (lord) were added to yhvh in order to remind the reader to say adonai instead of the proper name (which is not supposed to be spoken, or written). because of this, some use the misnomer "jehovah," which is a mangling of the vowels from adonai and the greek versions of the hebrew letters yhvh. most english texts write this name "The LORD" in all caps.you will see different names for god in the torah. some places he's called eloyhim ("God"). others it's yhvh ("The LORD"). sometimes a combination of the two. and sometimes it's just el. these names are used consistently throughout passages, suggesting the full inclusion of multiple sources.

quote:

---

Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.

---

either the flood covered the whole earth, and killed everything but the contents of the ark, or the bible is errant. actually, no, i didn't start this thread. i have no problem with the contradictions personally. i like both stories, and i accept them as two completely different narratives from two completely different sources.but if you insist that they must be one story, it makes no sense. in the evolution of judaism thread, we were trying to show how one was much later than the other, and how it indicates a change in the religion. actually, they are. within areas they're pretty consistent. even TOO similar as the case with gilgamesh and genesis. but if i were to compare the noah story to a native american story, they wouldn't match at all.does egypt have a flood myth? i think they're pretty familiar with floods over there. because "as a record of history, it fails brilliantly."

the flood is in genesis 6. other cultures don't arise until genesis 11. the civilization that noah lives in, according to genesis, is the ONLY one. where did i say i was athiest? because i read the bible differently than you do? i happen to be a christian, thankyouverymuch. have you read genesis? it's not a laundry list, where someone "goofed" and wrote the stories in slightly different orders. the two stories are fundamentally different. it's a point of PLOT for genesis 2 that man is alone, and so god creates animals and then woman for him. that's the WHOLE STORY not a line or two. but some parts are literally history? well, nothing in genesis. we can pretty much rule out the rest of the torah too. where should we pick it up? samuel? kings? even these books have directed focus. there are whole wars recorded by neighbors who fought the hebrews that these books leave out because they don't favor the view of the book. for instance, kings loves jehu, because he gets rid of the rebelious dynasty before him. here's a picture of king jehu kissing the feet of shalmanessar iii of assyria. please point out where this is recorded in the bible. also, please point out where it records the victory of his predecessor over shalmanessar. i sure can't find anywhere.good history? or biased distortions for a specific purpose?

but would you phrase it as though you built the airplane the first time around? you'd say "designed" just like you did. the bible doesn't do this, it says created in chapter one, and created in chapter two. god not only speaks his plan in first story, but the earth follows suit.

quote:

---

Design:

​

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

---

quote:

---

Manufacture:

​

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

---

the second story describes creation AGAIN

quote:

---

Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

---

actually, i've seen a problem or two that's turned out to be a typo, scribal error, or editting of the text. btu the examples are pretty rare -- this is not one of them. i should probably take more insult to his statement than i did. i am not an athiest, i just believe in a sensible way to read the bible. i fully believe in god, just not always the books his followers write.