Contradictions between Genesis 1-2

Acctualy I saying that the idea that the KJV translation is any better (or worse) than anyother subsequent translation is faulty. There are other translations that where derived (like the KJV) from the original texts (Hebrew, aramaic and greek) that are just as good, if not slightly better in some cases. YES, there is some difficulty in translating these texts from the original language to another, this occures with any hyper-text translations. (aleph, beyt, gemal, Hebrew ; alpha, beta, gama, Greek ; I'm not familar with arameaic and don't know if it is a hyper-text or not) Don't get me wrong I believe that the translators did a fairly good job, but there will undoubtedly be some errors.Day 6 is Friday (accourding to Hebrew tradition) The first sentance of verse 19 is just stating from what God created the animals and then the fowls. Like you say 'while a conditional clause is not strictly 'part of' the narative and does not alter the order of the narative,' it cannot be construed as 'part of' the narative. These are facts that are being inserted as an aside or BTW to give the reader information and nothing more. Note also that the conversation in Gen. 1:26 also starts with a conditional clause. This means that the conversation 'could' have taken place before God created the land animals or it 'could' have occured when the verse is introduced into the narrative. The only thing that is certain is that it could not have occured after God created man. This verse is giving information, that is its' purpose, to inform, and cannot be concidered sequntial of the narative. It's open to interpritation as to when it occured. As for verse 2:19 I am saying that God created (as Gen. 1 says) the land animals on Friday and the Fowls on Thursday, but these two events have been combined together to inform the reader from what God made them, not when He made, chapter 1 covers that. As far as a linear sequntial narative, chapter 2 jumps all over the place, this leads me to believe that the chapter is there for the most part to provide the reader with information that chapter 1 lacked, and that most of this information concerns the occurances 'on Friday' (and a few before Friday) in general. I'm not infering that the animals where made 'days' before. I'm infering that the land animals where made 'hours at most' before (certainly before adam) and that the fowl where made the day before (like chapter 1 says). That God made them before this particular sequence in the narrative, because the verse is non-sequential (just like the dicription of the garden of eden and the rivers that flowed from it and so forth). By following the narative clauses I get the seguence of events (God creating man [on day 6] God putting man in the garden, God bringing all the animals and fowl that He created to adam to see what he would name them, and finally God creating woman from man) everything else is non-sequential conditional/circumstantial information.

http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/index2.htmChoose for yourself.

If I take your linear view in reading the occurances of every following verse as occuring after the previous verse this presents even more problems later in the Bible. The first becomes apearent in chapter 3, but this can be seen even more so in chapter 4. In Gen. 4:17 the Bible goes into the liniage of Cain and all his first born decendants. This series ends in verse 4:24 when Lamech informs his wives that he like Cain has killed a man. The folloing verse if I read it the way you propose I read it didn't occure untill after Lamech Killed this man. "And adam knew his wife again and she bore another son and he was named seth." [paraphrase] There is just one problem with reading it that this didn't occur until after Lamech killed the man. Adam and Eve where not alive when Lamech's first son was born, much less after his third was born. As I pointed out before this verse too starts with a conditional/circumstancial clause. This repeating patern of using conditional/circumstancial clauses to 'back track' to a previous instance gives good credance to the idea that verse 2:19 is refering to something that occured prior to it being mentioned at that point in the Bible. Edited by imageinvisible, : clarification and added text in qs box

If you 'realy' want to understand 'exactly' what the Bible says my only suggestion to you is that you learn how to read it in its original dielects. ergo Hebrew, greek, and Aramaic. I think you missed my point though, I'm not sure what you expected or what you think I was implying. I was mearly stating that the idea that the KJV of the Bible is any better just because it was translated in 1611 is faulty. There are many documents (the dead sea scrolls for starters) that have been uncovered since 1611 that can and have been used to translate newer translations of the Bible. 'Personally' I like the NKJV and Young's Literal traslation better than the KJV, but this is a personal preferance. If I really want to understand exactly what the Bible says I would have to learn how to read it in its original dielects. for me however the translations [and the Spirit of God] are more than enough to determine what God is saying.

Im not useing problems with 'my' interpritation, I'm showing you porblems with 'your' interpritation.

I had faith that the Word of God was the Word of God long before I ever began to read the Word of God, but thats me. However reading the Word of God and even discusing the Word of God has only increased my faith in the Word of God. I have enough trouble with people around here reading things into what I say without you helping them Creationist. Are you with me or against me? Are you fearful, or is your face burried in the water? Or did you come here to fight, and lap the water like a dog?

Is that all you've got Ringo? Going to point out spelling problems because you can't fight the arguement?

If what you say is true yes. If not then no. And you are reading thing wrong in Gen chapters 1 and 2.