|
Author
|
Topic: Contradictions between Genesis 1-2
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
imageinvisible writes: Chapter one is a day by day acount, where as chapter two is clearly focused on the happenings of one day in perticular. The structure of chapter one vs. chapter two are comletly different. Chapter one served it's purpose, which was to tell the reader on what day God created what. Chapter two has an entirely different structure, and has it's own purpose (which is clearly diffrent from chapter ones purpose) Well, I've said all along that the two chapters are two different stories with two different purposes, so I don't know what you think you're arguing about.
A person should be able to read and understand EVERYTHING that is going on in chapter 3 without reading chapter 2. Let's turn the tables. Leaving out chapter 2, what would you miss that's so important?
Who is this God the serpent is talking about? The God. There's only one. No mystery.
Who is Adam? "The man" in the story. His back-story is irrelevant.
What is the tree of knowledge of good and evil? It's a tree that gives the knowledge of good and evil. It's not rocket science.
When did God tell them not to eat of it? What difference does it make? If He told them five minutes sooner, does it change the message?
What is the garden of eden? The place they lived. What else matters?
Where did it come from? Who cares?
Why is God so worried about this tree of life? That question isn't answered in chapter 2 either.
What is the tree of life? That question isn't answered in chapter 2 either. Chapter 2 is just another creation story with a different viewpoint. It just portrays God as more personal. It contains no vital information.
Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: wrong
imageinvisible writes: Without chapter two I have no idea 'if' or how many men came before him. And it doesn't matter.
I don't even know how he got his name, since thats not covered in chapters 1 or 3 either. And it doesn't matter.
Both trees are mentioned in chapter 2. I didn't say they weren't mentioned. I said that chapter 2 doesn't say "what the tree of life is".
If He didn't tell them this then He's just being cruel and obnoxious, and He's got no business cursing them for eating it. Again, I didn't say He didn't tell them. I said it doesn't matter when He told them, which was what you asked. It only matters that he told them - and chapter 3 tells us that. Don't waste my time misreading and/or misrepresenting what I say.
... chapter 2 introduces all the main charaters. So what? If chapter 2 wasn't there, they'd be introduced in chapter 3.
It tells me WHERE the garden of eden was for startes. [...] It tells me quit specifically that woman was take out of man. It tells me that man and woman where naked in the garden and that they had no shame at thier nakedness. This is getting boring. Is there anything important in chapter 2 that would change the message of the Bible if it was missing?
Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: to flimsy arguements
imageinvisible writes: If chapter 2 where not there the main characters would not be introduced in chapter 3 or in any other chapter.... Sure they would. If you had never seen a James Bond movie and they left off the little intro at the beginning, you'd still be introduced to him the first time you saw him. That's the way literature works. You're introduced to a character the first time he's mentioned, whether anything happened to him before that or not. I still don't know what point you're trying to make. All the silly ad hominem doesn't really clarify your position. If you have a created/formed argument, please present it in the appropriate thread. Leaving that aside, what exactly are you trying to pick a fight with me about?
Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: to flimsy arguements
Ringo writes: ... you continue to read the word formed (as created) in the present tense. No, I don't. I read both "formed" and "created" in the past tense. I have said explicitly that everything we are reading is in the past tense. You're arguing against a point I never made.
This whole arguement is based on the ASSUMPTION that formed=created... It's not an assumption. It's a conclusion. In this thread, everybody but you seems to have concluded that both chapters are creation stories. If you disagree with the conclusion, argue it in the proper thread.
... chapter 2 is fully half of the A&E story. That statement illustrates your level of understanding better than I ever could.
Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
re: OP
imageinvisible writes: I'm arguing that chapter 2 is a flashback to day 6 in chapter 1 WHICH makes tence VERY relevant. Then you have to show how the tenses in chapter two indicate a "flashback". For example, we see past tense in chapter 1:
quote:
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
and we see past tense again in chapter 2:
quote:
Gen 2:7 And 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.
Continuing in chapter 2, we see the past perfect (?) tense:
quote:
Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
referring back to verse 7. If all of chapter 2 is a flashback referring back to chapter 1, why isn't all of chapter 2 in the past perfect tense?
Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
re: OP
imageinvisible writes: The major difference bewteen chapter 2 and chapter one is that though chapter 1 uses past tense, each past tence is followed by present tense occurance. Do you understand what tenses are? "God said", "it was so", "the earth brought forth" and "God saw" are all past tense. There are no present tense occurrences. God spoke (past tense) in the present tense because it was (past tense) the present when He spoke (past tense). In order to back up your "flashback" hypothesis, it would have to say something like, "God formed (past tense) the animals that He had made (past perfect tense)." As far as I can tell, there's no indication of any such thing. ------------- ABE: AdminNosy hid the part that I quoted (not that I blame him  ) but I think it's the (only) pertinent part of the post. Edited by Ringo, : No reason given.
Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
re: OP
imageinvisible writes: Since Ringo pointed out that words that are similar are also equal... That's not what I said. I said that synonyms are equivalent.
... then using a "literal" {cough cough} translation one can explain away any supposed contradiction you think you see here. Just the opposite. You're the one who's trying to explain away contradictions by making up your own additions to the text. A literal reading requires us to accept contradictions as contradictions, errors as errors. For example, God decides to make a mate for Adam:
quote:
Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.
Then, immediately in the very next verse, he starts making animals:
quote:
Gen 2:19 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.
It's as if God said, "I'm going to bake a cake," and He went into the kichen and started sifting flour and beating eggs... but you're insisting that that's not part of the plan at all. The sifting flour and beating eggs has nothing to do with the cake, even though it follows immediately in the story. Then, God notices that there's no suitable mate for Adam:
quote:
Gen 2:20 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 a help meet for him.
That's like God saying, "Oh oh, I'm out of sugar. I can't bake a cake without sugar." But you're insisting that God's observation has nothing to do with the flour and the eggs. Then God figures out how to make a mate for Adam:
quote:
Gen 2:21 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;
Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
That's like God going next door and borrowing a cup of sugar... but you're insisting that the sugar still has nothing to do with the flour and the eggs. You're bringing in a very silly and unnecessary assumption. You're assuming that the animals have nothing to do with God creating a mate for Adam, even though they're right there in the middle of the story. If you read it literally, you have to conclude that the animals are an integral part of the story and that God (mistakenly) proposed them as mates for Adam.
Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
re: OP
imageinvisible writes: God didn't decide to make a mate for adam He promised adam that He 'will make' adam a mate. Would you please read the text, at least?
quote:
Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.
"I will make him a help meet for him." God was talking about Adam, not to him. He didn't make Adam any promise.
God doesn't start making animals in the next verse, he already made them... Still don't understand tenses, eh? It doesn't say He "had" formed them. It says explicitly that He formed (made) them:
quote:
Gen 2:19 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.
All you've done is misrepresent the text. Why would anybody take your notions seriously?
Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
re: OP
imageinvisible writes: quote:
God was talking about Adam, not to him. He didn't make Adam any promise.
I hadn't realized that you where there, so you are the one God was talking to? You don't have to "be there" to read plain English. Why would God refer to Adam as "him" if Adam was there?
quote:
It doesn't say He "had" formed them. It says explicitly that He formed (made) them:
"formed" it's past tense I'm reading it in past tense. Your whole "flashback" scenario is based on past perfect tense, though. "Last Thursday, God said he had made some animals on Tuesday," is past perfect and that seems to be what you're suggesting. Past tense, which Genesis uses, would be, "Last Thursday, God said He made some animals." You can't infer from that that the animals were made days before. They might have been made minutes before the past-tense statement was made. So, your assertion that the making of the animals is a flashback doesn't follow from a plain reading of the text. In a literal reading, it's a straight narrative, with God making the animals and bringing them to Adam as prospective mates.
They are mearly describing the circumstance or condition of the subject in the sentance. Useing verse 2:15 compared to verses 2:10, 2:12, 2:25 it becomes quit clear that the verses that start with a conditional/circumstancial clause are mearly stating facts, and are not part of the sequence of the narrative. Therefore any conditional/circumstantial clause cannot be concidered sequential in the narative. While a conditional clause isn't strictly "part of" the narrative, it doesn't alter the order of the narrative either. It doesn't magically change "formed" to "had formed". You can't infer a time span from it. The translators didn't render it, "the LORD God [had] formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them." Do you know something they didn't know? If the translators got that one wrong, how can we use a translation for anything?
Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
re: OP
imageinvisible writes: 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. I've never stated a preference for any translation. The only reason I quote from the KJV is because I've been familiar with it for more than fifty years. I know the phraseology, so it's easier for me to search than any other version. If you have other translations that support your flashback scenario, by all means, roll them out.
Like you say 'while a conditional clause is not strictly 'part of' the narative and does not alter the order of the narative,' . These are facts that are being inserted as an aside or BTW to give the reader information and nothing more. You're making that assertion, but you need to show why "it cannot be construed as 'part of' the narative".
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.... Well, that's what makes it a contradiction. You're starting from the assumption that it's not a contradiction and making up non-textual excuses. Verse 19 plainly (literally) says that God made beasts and fowls after He made man. If you have a point about the Hebrew word order negating that, you'll have to be a lot clearer.
As far as a linear sequntial narative, chapter 2 jumps all over the place... Well, no. Not unless you assume a priori that Chapter 1 has the "correct" order.
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). The amount of time before is irrelevant. It's the order that matters. Your inference is based on your initial assumption that the stories tally, not on the text itself. Here's another exercise for you: Forget that chapter 1 exists and read only chapter 2. From the text alone, using Hebrew word order, conditional/circumstantial senses, hammer and tongs, whatever tools you want, figure out the order of the events. Sure, it's possible to cobble the two stories together into one plausible narrative, but that's not what we're doing here. It's possible to cobble Little Red Riding Hood together with the Three Pigs into a plausible biography of the Big Bad Wolf, but that's not what we're doing here. We're trying to look at two stories honestly and see if there are contradictions - not spackle over any possibility of contradiction.
Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
re: more info
imageinvisible writes: 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. We're talking about Genesis 1 and 2 here. You can't use problems with your interpretation of the rest of the Bible to rearrange the text for this thread.
Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
re: more info
imageinvisible writes: ... I'm showing you porblems with 'your' interpritation. Yer mite wanne gitcher spill czecher fixt beefwhore yu strat poetig owt othra peepels porblems'.
Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
re: more info
imageinvisible writes: Is that all you've got Ringo? Going to point out spelling problems because you can't fight the arguement? No. The thread is over and you seem to be a slow learner. I've got a million or so posts left in me. I don't know if that'll be enough to get through to you. Edited by Ringo, : Missspeld "thru". 
Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.
|
™ Version 4.2