spin

It is not a matter of fallibility. It is a matter of differences between languages. What Hebrew tries to convey through verbs, Indo-Europeans also convey through temporal references.

You have to deal with the problem case by case. This means you need to understand Hebrew before you can argue on a case basis, so that you can check what the original text says. There are errors in the KJV, such as the "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14.

This is already in error. While the heavens and the earth are the object of `SWT, you need a clause onto which one attaches, "for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth: and there was not a man to till the ground". Now Hebrew is prone to verbless clauses and obviously this "for..." statement attaches not to the clause with `SWT, but to the clause with every plant and every herb. This means that the "and" of "and every plant" is not conjunctive and cannot attach the phrase to `SWT, but is a verbless clause which controls the "for..." clause.

You should now be able to see the grammatical problem of attaching the "for..." clause to a noun clause. It doesn't make sense, nor does it reflect the structure of what is said.

What you have is the starting condition:

in the day that YHWH Elohim made the earth and the heavens, and all plants of the field not yet on the earth and all herbs not yet grown, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth: and there was not a man to till the ground,

so what happened given these starting conditions?

and a vapour rose out of [MN] the earth and watered all the face of the ground, And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground

And so this creation was off and running.

No. This is not what the text says. See above.

It's a shame that you still haven't done so.

Your desire to get to your conclusion is directing your thoughts.

You have to postulate against the grammar, that the plants were first created but not given existence. That's pretty contorted.

Man tills, God creates. By tillling you work the plants. There were no plants for God hadn't created man to work them, so had no reason to create them.

This is just more faulty logic, based on faulty premises.

First creative act: God makes man
Second creative act: God plants the garden
Third creative act: God makes trees spring forth (along with the special ones)

Ya wot?

I don't see your point.

Verses 4 and 5 definitely don't allow you. You have misinterpreted the text, as pointed out above. Here is your error again:

You wrongfully attach a separate clause to that in v4 which contains `SWT ("made") . See above for the problem explained.


spin

spin

To help CyberShy understand the grammar underlying Gen 2:5, he should look at the grammar of 1 Sam 3:7

W-$MW'L +RM YD`'T-YHWH

And Samuel not yet know YHWH

which gets worded:

"And Samuel didn't yet know YHWH"

Gen 2:5a says

W-KL $YX H-$DH +RM YHYH B-'RC

And every plant of the field not yet was on the earth

which gets worded:

"And no plant of the field was yet on the earth"

That's what the grammar requires.


spin

rlogan

It seems to be a preoccupation with Christians to "prove" consistency in the Bible. Why does it have to be consistent?

Spin doesn't adhere to the documentary hypothesis per se, but the arguments for separate traditions seem pretty obvious. Having plants "created" but not "growing" is a pretty artful contrivance to serve your need for consistency. Why fashion arguments that go against the linguistics too?

It's good to work a hypothesis through from front to back in a single setting so that it has a proper fleshing. That is why I suggested the reading. It may not be the "truth", but it brings a lot of other material into the discussion that you can't do properly in a thread like this.

You just reject anything that goes against your assumption, yet it remains only that - an assumption.

Amos

But the "essence precedes existance" argument is as old the "free will" argument and it is wrong to assume that the author was trying to please the linguistis analysis because it is looking all over the globe for solutions while the answers to these questions must be found in our mind, and that is what philosophy is all about.

The idealist verses materialist argument is much like it and from this it is obvious that the obvious is wrong and maybe Occam himself should be trown out with the trimmings he is pointing at.

Before we even start reading Gen.1 and Gen.2 a distinction must be made between "God" and "Lord God" and between "God said" and "Lord God formed" and why it is that Lord God never creates anything but trouble, one might add. If these questions cannot be answered we are obviously looking at different passages.

Doctor X

GD:

. . . because one is "Elohim" and the other is "YHWH?" Neglect not the differences in the creation stories.

. . . because, like, one is dust and the other is a rib? I am unaware of a rib being the same as dust!

--J.D.

Amos

But Eve was never formed out of dust, nor was she taken from a rib. Man was formed out of dust and woman was taken from man's rib. Eve wasn't even thought of at that moment because that all took place before the fall of man.