What's Best Reconciliation of Gen 1 and 2 You've Heard?

they're not changing the basic account being given in the bible, they ARE the basic account being given in the bible. you can't just change what the bible says and how it says it willy-nilly and not expect those of us who really read the book for it's literal, face value to object.you can't say that one section of the bible overrides another's sequence of events, story, or causal relationships because you happen to like one section better. that's ignoring, claiming error with a section of the bible. so importance relies on order?doesn't that make levitical law more important than jesus, because leviticus comes before matthew? you'd better start watching what you eat! so what if jesus says "it's not what goes into a man's mouth..." because leviticus defines what should and should not, and jesus's philosophy must fall in line with that.similar, paul must not really have meant what he said in galations about circumcision, because god already told us it was an everlasting covenant. paul's philosophy needs to be interpretted using the abrahamic covenant as the key. above, i posted what chapter 2 looks like when rendered in chapter 1's order. only the important bits. you fail to aknowledge that it doesn't make sense. what? what does this have to do with anything? ahem, no. the bible overrules you, and the way you choose to interpret it. if your interpretation requires that rearrange the bible in such a way that it no longer even makes sense, your interpretation is wrong. i have exactly one preconception, when i read the bible: it means exactly what it says.you, on the other hand, have the preconceptions that:
1) it's the word of god
2) it's the complete word of god
3) it's the only word of god
4) it's entirely without error, down to punctuation, tyographical errors, numbering, and translation
5) it is without contradiction (even in the major ideological shifts)
6) everything describe in book actually happenedthat's a pretty hefty set of preconceptions. failing to see the rather blatantly obvious differences in genesis 1 and 2 is a product of number 5. put them aside for a second, and stop trying to puree the bible into a nice smoothie, and just read it for what it says. actually, if the assumption that god wrote it is true, it's PROOF of an inept god. which is why i consider claims like yours blasphemy.a truly powerful god would have written it all down at one shot, in his own hand, with no humans involved. he would have written it in modern english, several thousand years before english was invented. he would have written it as one account -- one story, one book. no ungraceful flashbacks, no contradictions, no difference in voice, language, or style. it would be concise, to the point, and not contain duplicate accounts (especially not duplications with variations). no need for interpretation, or apologistics, or any of this garbage.what you come to find, when you really study the bible is that the bible is the single greatest test of faith. you find people who lose their faith entirely because the bible simply is not what people like you claim it to be. this assumption is a dangerous, false, and blasphemous one.

---

i'm not entirely sure if past perfect exists in hebrew the way it exists in english. i don't know, we just got to past tense when my last class ended. but the past perfect (in english) certainly works better by context. no no, even worse. we can't tell the difference between past and PRESENT. we have to infer from the content of the story, and the context of the other verses that do include obvious past tense verbs, that it is past tense. it's only the he/she form that's confusing. you, them, i, and we (in either gender) are all different. just the he/she form looks like present. well, it's really useful to understand the hebrew grammar that goes into it. honestly, most english versions, as best as i can tell, are pretty good. it's more a question of how much of the intricacy you'd like to know.

---

it makes TOO much sense to you, because you're not actually reading the text for what it says. i will not give anything up, because it's not me who's failing to see the obvious here. you're playing the song, and doing the dance.it's not "juicy tidbits" over beer. it's a whole second story, and it spans three chapters. there is an order central to it, and a logic to it, that if you remove the story no longer makes sense.you suggested earlier that maybe the plants that god created on day three, but didn't plant until day six were in orbit for three days. you are creating ad hoc fantasies, and trying to reinterpret one text to fit your view of another. i spell it with a lowercase because it's not a name. and since god's name is a hebrew word, and hebrew has only one case i doubt he minds. this is not "on the eighth day, god invented beer." this is serious, and i wish you'd for once try to actually give the text the respect it deserves, instead of trying to cram your ideas into it, and completely rob it of all meaning. that's fine. but that's not what the bible SAYS. it SAYS, there were no plants yet in the ground BECAUSE there was no man to till the soil.KI ADAM AIN. no, you are GLOSSING over a whole section of the bible, and saying that what it says does not matter. it doesn't matter that there were no plants BECAUSE there was no man. and it doesn't matter that animals were created BECAUSE adam was lonely. and it doesn't matter that none of it makes any sense in the other order -- because you're simply not paying enough attention to notice. you're just nodding along and saying "uh huh, yeah, ok. whatever. want a beer? uh huh." evidently not! yo're completely ignoring every level of this story. you're ignoring the literal meaning. you're ignoring the grammar. you're ignoring the contextual meaning of it. you're ignoring the cause-effect relationships. you're ignoring the logic. you're ignoring the reasoning. you're ignoring the application of the text.no, you would not rather know what it means. you're making every effort to NOT know what it means, so you can fit it into your preconcieved idea of what the text SHOULD say, according to you, or your pastor, or your church. all i see here is a ton of not thinking, period. it's not that we are smart, it's that we can read. it's not that we are the smartest, it's just that we understand grammar. it's that we shouldn't have to rely on an outside source to completely re-tell the stories in the bible so that they fit together better, and certainly not one that tells us to ignore what's there on the page. especially not if god wrote the text -- such an idea is an insult to god, that he couldn't even write it in plain enough language that it doesn't need to be reinterpretted. i don't doubt that god is real -- i don't doubt that he's omnipresent.nor do i doubt that god is potent -- he's omnipotent.nor do i doubt that he's smart -- he's omniscient.it is the people who think they have all the answers that we should doubt. you seem to have accidently paraphrased the apostle paul:

quote:

---

1Cr 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

---

now, we know in part. now, we see god like a dim reflection in a mirror. no man has seen god face to face -- but we will. and THEN we will have all the answers. beware those who claim to have them now -- for they are liars and charlatans, and sent to mislead. but not smart enough to get it right twice? this is kind of like the story of the 20 commandments. you know that bit in exodus where moses breaks the first tablets, and god re-writes them exactly as they were? yeah, you might wanna check that too. pretending there are not contradictions are the product of headstrong willfully ignorant fundamentalists trying to force the bible into their own preconceptions

---

...

quote:

---

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

---

"the law" = ha-torah, the book we are talking about. you do very well at using biblical references against your own points. ...i'm really starting to believe that you are not even willing to ATTEMPT to take the bible seriously.

---

the specific story of adam and eve is given in genesis 2 and 3, and continued in 4 with cain and abel. i know they're mentioned all over the place, but their story is those three chapters. it's not just some aside information. it's their story. says you. no, you're the one with the twisted insistance that god is whacky -- because the rest of us see some pretty obvious problems here, and you are trying to assigne those problems to god's hand. because we can read the story, whisper. it's reading comprehension. first one event happens, then another event happens. the story is not told out-of-order, no matter how much you insist that it must be. it makes no sense out of order, and your order directly contradicts the actual text of the story. funny, because jesus himself would not have recognized the name. though if you called him "joshua" he might have understood you. further, that's not the name of god. the name of god is . that's yud-heh-vav-heh, four semi-vowels. it's pronounced "Ya-Hu-Eh" again, you require that we ignore genesis 2, in favor of genesis 1. gen 2 SAYS that before man, there were no plants. it SAYS that. it gives us a REASON WHY, too. you don't understand what evidence is, do you?and chapter two DOES make that order clear. perfectly clear, in fact. man has lonely, so god made animals. one is caused by the other. your order requires that genesis 2 is completely written in an incomprehensible and confusing order, where effect precedes the cause, and the verses themselves lie. genesis 2 SAYS that there were no plants because there was no man. then it SAYS that AFTER man was created, he was lonely, so god made animals. these are cause-effect relationships. they REQUIRE that genesis 2 is told in order, not out of order. you are ignoring the text because it doesn't fit your idea. no, i'm not insulting god. you are insulting god by saying he wrote something this contradictory. you are insulting god by associating him with this sort of work.and evidently, it's NOT plain enough since you simply cannot seem to understand it. chapter 2 only seems like a contradictions if you've read it. and the DETAILS contradict the other story. no, you fail to recognize your own ignorance. just read the book. stop pretending you know what it says, and read it.

---

you don't want to get into this here, and it's not place. but i have some fun examples for you.

quote:

---

1Ki 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

---

the circle's diameter is 10 units. it's circumference is 30 units. that makes pi (the ratio of circumference to diameter) = 3. i've seen some fun apology for this one, regarding tricks of measurement, but it's ad-hoc and stupid.but here are my favourite two that make fundamentalists squirm.

quote:

---

2Sa 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

​

1Ch 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

---

same story, crucial detail changed. similarly:

quote:

---

Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

​

Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

---

---

indeed, genesis 2 is the story that has god directly forming animals. in genesis 1, god commands the earth to bring forth animals.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

you are the only one here. the "commentary" you provided can be shown to inaccurate with textual evidence to the contrary. textual evidence you just go right on ignoring.there is an old saying in jewish interpretation. no drash can contradict the pshat. in other words, all interpretation, explanation, and application is based on the literal text, and cannot be used to say the torah does not actually mean what it says.apologists try to explain away contradictions -- but to do so requires changing, re-arranging, or often completely ignoring the literal meaning of the text itself. you are requiring that genesis 2 not only be told completely out of order, but that the very content of the story and the verses themselves (that explain the order and cause-effect relationships) be wildly inaccurate.

---

is it really simple? i guess it is.did his post count just jump by about 1600 today? ie: did they just merge the accounts? i could swear he wasn't actually simple yesterday -- though i suspected very strongly that he was.especially with that "plants formed in orbit" deal. yes, i remember. he annoyed me then too. no logic. no reason. no evidence. he just changes the bible to mean whatever he wants.

---

simple doesn't believe in cause-effect relationships pre-fall. therefor, there is no reason for anything to make sense at all in genesis 1-3. inconsistencies aren't a problem because the rules are different in merged reality.

---

same misunderstanding of the text, refusal to read the actual words on the page, no concept of logic, or cause and effect, and repeating of the same tired and obviously wrong points. the flippant attitude towards the text, and one-liners are a give-away.

quote:

---

Mat 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

---

maybe we should just ignore him. it's just cluttering up the thread here arguing the same point ad nauseum trying to get him to understand the text on a basic reading-comprehension level.

---

i could swear i checked to see if he was a simple alias a day or two ago, and that he wasn't at the time. he is now, though. apparently jar tracked him down, and merged the accounts.it's simple again. not exactly. he tries to debate -- he just doesn't seem to understand, well, anything. i don't think he's being obnoxious on purpose, otherwise he'd get banned pretty quickly. i mean, he doesn't create 100 copies of the same thread, actively flame people repeatedly, or continually post content-less garbage. just the same, well, simple one-liners, arguments, and attemps at refutation without the slightest shred of evidence.

---

hm, yeah, but what to do?

we're having enough problems getting a certain someone to agree to the facts of what is and what is not on the page.

---

false dichtomy, here. "literal" and "factual" are not the same thing. the stories (plural) might not be factual, but they need not be symbolism/metaphor. they are written with symbolic meaning, but that it is on top of the literal meaning of the text.the bible does not have to be factually correct in genesis for it to be significant religiously. i wouldn't call blatant logical fallacies "philosophical clarity."

---