Doctor X

Unable to confront the scholarship and evidence for multi-authorship, the individual runs about the room whining:

Apparently, having his confession of faith dash'd constitute "avoidance of debate."

To Reiterate:

1. The Individual fails to read the posts previous to his flights of fancy.
2. The Individual misrepresents the texts.
3. The Individual ducks any discussion of the current scholarship of the formation of the Pentateuch.
4. The Individual ignores the arguments of previous posters that demonstrate his attempt to harmonize the myths is mere apologetics.
5. The Individual becomes petulent when exposed.

Others have generously attempted to direct the Individual to understanding. Unfortunately, [Cue Violins.--Ed.] these kind entreaties have fallen upon deaf eyes.

GD:

Spin rather answers your question. The contradictions persist. Now whoever the Redactor was--the guy(s) who put the text together--he/they probably did, indeed, intend such apologetics or he/they did not consider the contradictions that disturbing. I tend towards the later because he/they left far more curious contradictions--like the name of the gods or obvious contradictory doublets. Now, Friedman would argue that the reason a Redactor could not effect a better "clean-up" is that the texts/traditions were probably well enough known to prevent it.

Now . . . now Spin:

Methinks Amaleq13 sens'd in the Individual's appeal to a multi-person deity:

He correctly recognizes that this apology is extra-biblical.

--J.D.

GakuseiDon

I'm not an inerrantist, spin.

No problem.

No need for them to contradict, either, which is the question. The question isn't "are those passages from different sources", but "in the final form of the Bible that we have, do they contradict?"

So you are saying that, even though different words are used, they are referring to the same thing??? Wouldn't you blast an apologist who said something like that?

Given the focus in Gen 2 on things of the field, and the description of man tilling the ground, and the meaning of the Hebrew word used as "cultivated land", I would like to see you back that up.

What distinctions? I'm still interested in the answer to my question: Wouldn't you say that Gen 1 refers to the general ordering of the world, and Gen 2 refers to the domestication of man's environment? And if they are referring to different things, how can there be contradiction?

GakuseiDon

Multiple editors left inconsistancies in the finalised form of the Bible, but not necessarily contradictions. How is Gen 1 using "Elohim" and Gen 2 using "YHWH" a contradiction? I don't see it.

Wouldn't you say that Gen 1 refers to the general ordering of the world, and Gen 2 refers to the domestication of man's environment?

Doctor X

GD:

Not to write for spin but I do not see that:

If the Redactor wanted that specifically, I think he would have cleaned up the contradictions--fixed the sequences. I rather think they did not bother him. As I noted, the Redactor preserves some much more contradictory doublets--like "Amos is a butthead" versus "Amos is more important than Moses" to be overly simplistic. It requires apologetic acrobatics that makes reconciling the Genesis stories seem reasonable. My point with that is that the Redactor preserved those clear contradictions so, methinks, the Genesis contradictions did not seem so disturbing.

--J.D.

Doctor X

We cross post'd.

The creation sequences are contradictory. Poor Eve . . . first dust then a rib.

I allude to more extreme contradictions in the Pentateuch.

--J.D.

GakuseiDon

Doc, you seem to be saying that Gen 1 using "Elohim" and Gen 2 using "YHWH" is a contradiction. How is that?

Also, where is the contradiction showing Eve being formed from dust on one hand, and a rib on the other?

Amos

But the Redactor knew you would be coming along to pick sides and hid the truth so you'r be faced with the apparent contradiction that you may also search for some truth in life.

Amos

I can see why you think she should be allowed to vote.

spin

Fine. Why do you struggle against logic to get rid of contradictions?

You are being parsimonious with your language. Can they or can they not contradict each other according to your thought??

The reason why I chose birds in the above is so that you cannot claim that the references can be different, unless you are prepared to go to preposterous lengths to allow them to refer to different things, as the two terms map very closely -- the best you can hope for is a minimal content of non-overlap, while they overlap greatly enough to show that they have the same reference in mind -- all birds.

But that is not the focus: it is the means of description.

No, the Hebrew word does not mean "cultivated land". 'DMH, means "land or earth" and comes from 'DM, meaning "red" ie the colour of earth.



No. The text talks not of "man's environment" but of what God created when he created the earth and the heavens. We are dealing not with some local creation, but clearly introduced with a toledoth of the creation of the earth and the heavens.

And before there were plants and herbs on the earth, God created man. Why on earth don't you read what the text says, GakuseiDon? You claim that you are not an inerrantist, yet you create absurd distinctions, so as to allow the texts not to contradict. I wish you would clarify why you need to do this dance.

As the birds clearly refer to the same thing despite the difference in statement (you can do the same in English, given the object of "create" as "all avian species" and "all winged birds", the intent should clearly be the same), statements that contain them can clearly contradict each other. We are told that birds were created before man in the first creation account, yet we are told that they were created after man in the second. Here we have a contradiction.

Is it worth all the effort to struggle over something that most non inerrantists already know? ie that the two creation accounts contradict each other and that was no problem even for the particular redactors. As the texts were sacred, they left them as is.


spin

CyberShy

yup

thanks for your help.
The thing is not that I lack knowledge on the subject.
The thing is that I see no reason to bring the documentary hypothesis in this discussion.

The only thing it shows is that, according to the hypothesis, different authors have written Genesis. Which might be the reason that gen1 and gen2 use different names for God.
But this topic is not about the reason behind this. We try to discover if this is a inner biblical contradiction.

If the letter of Paul contradicts the letter of John, then it makes no sence to come up with the "Both letters are by different authors" argument either. The Bible should be consistent, eventhough it has many authors. And that's what this discussion is about.

I think it's more that doctor x is keen on showing his knowledge, his inteligence and his wisdom, rather than finding the truth.
I hope the guy is joking, but in fact I can't see much difference between his way of argumentating and the way orthodox christians debate. Speaking from a certain truth that should be teached to others while they already have all knowledge.

In fact I can see more and more simularities between old-fashioned christian doctrine and modern-atheism-doctrine.

Forgiving is the duty of a christian

An argument people are used to use against people with another opinion.
As I said, I'm very used in debating with (very) orhodox christians (you would say fundies) and they have the same style of reasoning. If one explains the text in a way they disagree with, they immediately come up with the "You are reading it into the text" argument. Of course people with different opinions think that the other party is 'reading into the text'.
I think it's rather ignorant to voice that, eventhough I have to admit that I think about spin the same thing. I must say thouth that I like the reasoning of spin so far very well. He comes with arguments and doesn't speak from a certain hight. Thank God for spin to argument with

But a rational debate is not about qualifying the way one found the arguments, but morely about disqualifying the argument itself. For much 'fundies' that's difficult. And I'm pleased to see that this is not a fundie problem, but a human problem. (or one could say that much atheists are fundies as well) (save the 'good ones' )

thanks for your help though! It's appreciated.

Of course that's true. Every translation we have will always be fallable. But I think the KJ Bible is well-known for it's accuracy. As been said before, it's as close as wel will get. In another topic I read that 'atheists' blamed 'fundies' for blaming the translation. I would say: if 'they' can't do it, then you can't either.

So I want to study this passage again from the KJ Bible.

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day (yowm) that the Lord God made
- the earth
- and the heavens
- and every plant in the field before it was in the earth
- and every herb of the field before it grew.

This part speaks about 'the day' (yowm) in which God made[list]
the plants and herbs are included in this list.
Thus: God created these plants / herbs on this day.

Followed by an explanation why were the plants / herbs created, but not yet growing / coming up from the earth.
The explanation is that there was no man to till the ground.

Thus: there was a day in which herbs and plants were created, though they didn't grow / come out of the earth yet. This day was before there was any man. (I'll follow your style of reasoning now: ) why don't you just read the text? This is what it says. I'm not reading into the text, I'm just ordening it in the list (of creations), the day (period) and the chronology (create day list before man).

The problem lies in the thing that the plants/herbs apparently were created, but not yet growed.
You can either say that
a. the plants started to grow after man till the ground
b. the plants started to grow after the mist came out of the earth.

But since gen2 makes no mention of man tilling the ground before the plants started to grow, that option would be reading into.
It even says that God made the plants grow in Eden, not man.

For that reason verse 6 must be the explanation. Verse 5 claims that there was no water for the plants to grow. (no rain, nor man tilled the ground (to water it)) but then God waters it Himself in verse 6.

But even if you disagree with that you cannot deny that verse 4 and 5 speak about the creation of plants before the creation of man.

that's reading into the text.

reading into

verse 8 and 9 are talking about the planting of the garden of Eden. About growing trees out of the ground in this garden, and putting the special trees in the mids of the garden.
It doesn't talk about creating trees!

The 8th and 9th verses are about man being putted in the garden of Eden. Do you deny that? If so, why do you deny that while it's mentioned?

1. I bought a car
2. I painted the chairs red
3. I putted a new steer in my new bought car

If there is no mention about another car, everyone will assume that the new bought car has been painted red.
Verse 8 and 9 are simular.

1. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden
2. and there he put the man whom he had formed.
3. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food
4. the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

1,2 and 4 are about the garden of Eden, for it's mentioned.
3 does indeed not mention the garden of Eden.
Does that make you conclude that 3 is not about the garden of Eden?

verse 7 and 9 indeed don't allow me.
But verse 4 and 5 do.

These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made (...) every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew (...) and there was not a man to till the ground.

But trees are formed out of the ground every day. But they're not created anymore. They grow because the ground has been watered and tilled.
I am a man, but I'm not a creation of God.
I'm a result of (micro) evolution through the generation of God's creation. God never created a blanc man. He created black man.

And like God grows trees out of the ground every day, He did in the garden of Eden. That's what this passage focus' on.
Everything else is reading into it. (yeah, I like that style of argumentating )