cpickett

But the NIV is the only version that I have seen that uses HAD....

Magus55

Right, the NIV uses had planted, most translations don't, they just use basic past tense - planted. Can't remember what Had planted is called in English, past tense with helping verb? or linking verb? all translations are past tense, they just use different forms of the past.

Did my explanation help you at all, or was it a complete waste of time?

Clutch

This is the funniest thing I've read in a long time.

You know, last summer I was taking my daughter and nephew for a canoe ride. My daughter asked how deep the water was; I replied that I wasn't quite sure, but that it would be over anybody's head.

My nephew replied, instantly, "It wouldn't be over Jesus's head!"

He was five years old.

But he had nothing on Magus Fifty-five.

God isn't just tall -- he glows, and that's what lights up heaven!

... er, because otherwise what would the photo-receptors in people's eyes react to, in heaven?

Hawkingfan

Can I offer a contradiction for Magus55? How about this one:

John 5
31"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.

John 8
14Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going.

BadBadBad

You're not there yet Magus. I shouldn't have to explain this to you, but this is the second time I'll tell you to use all the words in the sentence. You explained away the water bit by using the unique translation of the NIV. What about the second reason for not having plants? You left that out. There were no plants because god hadn't caused it to rain, and there was no man to till the ground.

You said this was all from Adam's perspective. If this verse is from Adam's perspective, it's not from the perspective of the first man on earth staring out into the luscious garden of Eden full of plants. He would not open his account of creation by describing a time when there were no plants explaining that God hadn't created them because Adam wasn't there to till the ground. If God didn't create plants until he created Adam to till the ground, I have to take that at face value. God created Adam first then plants.

Try again using all the words you find in Genesis 2, and if you want to switch to a Bible that says it the way you want, we better switch to Hebrew so we can all be on the same page with respect to the translation. It's OK Magus. God inspired the Bible to be full of contradictions because he wanted it that way. It may be a little confusing for you, but if God did it, it must be good!

braces_for_impact

I learned a while ago not to bother fundies with scriptural errors and/or contradictions. They will interpret, reorder, suppose, and simply make up reasonings as they go along to avoid admitting that their entire world view is in danger of unravelling.

BadBadBad

Bare with me. This is my first experience. Magus has a long way to go. SAB has a lot of contradictions just in the two first chapters alone. I'm sure I'll get tired of this before we make all the way through that!

MrDarwin

Too bad these "original", "perfect" Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are long gone, since the oldest ones now known frequently disagree with each other (and not just in matters of tense, either). (But perhaps those Dead Sea Scrolls can enlighten us...)