I do not choose to accept without question. That is the difference here. I would like some answers. No offense. Hopefully someone else will take this on.

It is a theory held by some, not everyone of course, but some scholars who have studied these two versions extensively that one account is much more in keeping with the pagan religious view of the beginning because that would have been the commonly held understanding of birth as it related to human females and the earth. Remember these early writers would have had to remain at least partially in line with human understanding of birth, life, death. They were working within those confines in order to have some kind of credibility. Then there was a change, BECAUSE, the pagan view did not totally support what (the future) scripture gatherers wanted it to say. Of course they would have had a concept of mother in other words. We also get into Lilith at that point.

I feel that you are applying an unreasonable burden of proof and ignoring a perfectly acceptable explanation.

If an explanation is available for two apparently contradictory statements, then they aren't contradictory. As Aristotle taught of contradictions, "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time". But that requires that you be talking about one specific something. If you are discussing two somethings, then there is no contradiction.

In Genesis 1 and 2, there are two creation stories. They would only be contradictory if they were from the same source. Why would one source, which is capable of thinking and writing, produce two contradictory stories and put them back to back. Such a belief stretches the imagination. The more logical belief is that the descriptions are two different perspectives on the same event.

Because they were obviously written by different individuals. Not by Moses.

JB

krimsa,

While ,in Genesis 2:4, there appears to be a literary contradiction, it is also an ambiguous distinction to discount it is such.

The word there "generation" has meaning or it would not be there.

This is one of two words used in Hebrew writings. here it means descent, family, etc, and can be expressed as 'history" in the figurative sense.

Another word for 'generations' does not appear in scripture until Genesis 7.

That is not a failing of the writer, but a discepancy found only in translation.

The word for 'generation' in Gensis 7 is " a revolution of time'.

Now , I bring this up to help explain the word for God being used, apparent in contradiction between gen 1 and 2, is a plural derivitive of 'el' and 'elohiym' used as god(s) also can be used for angels.

Not that JHWHelohiym is anything but elohiym, but rather that JHWHelohiym gives a singular and significant expression of office as elohiym, meaning that the specific 'guiding light' of Isra-el is JHWH, and JHWHelohiym is the distinction being made for further clarity and context.

JHWH as elohiym of Genesis 1 is not excluded. Rather, it codifies which elohiym is the being spoken of, consistent with intent throughout Genesis 2; in so far as precept upon precept is concerned. This becomes a pertinent distinction being made as the narrative develops and teaches further in Genesis 3 certains things relevant. i.e. the serpent.

Now then, as for the use of such words as 'and' and 'but' in Genesis 2: 4-9 goes, they are implied.

The word 'and' is generally added in translation where it can be deduced by sentence structure and grammatical rules within the Hebrwe language as afforded its useages that such use of and, or but are appropriate, but are generally assumed to exist in thought as connecting one statement TO another or seperating one statement FROM another.

The word 'then' is used emphatically, as in Genesis 2:7 according to whatever translation you are reading, but unfortunately, that word does not appear in scripture until genesis 3.

I make this point to elucidate that the Hebrew and the KJV do not use the word then as in "then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the...." in Genesis 2:7.

Tis word is often implied, but not in the KJV in this case, and not implied until Gen3:5.


NOw to use that word 'then' as expressed in Hebrew, the word 'az' would have to be present. It is not.
'Az' means, as a demonstrative adverb, "at that time or place" and also as a conjunctive expressed as "therefore".

So, Gensis 2 is saying in overview that thus and so is as premise for the teachings and narratives to follow.

The repetition is prologue to a different observation being made and not an attempt to change the first but remind of the first mention as given in the previous chapter, 1.

The whole of the meaning of Genesis 2 is to point out that man and woman CLEAVE to one another, not because they are mother and father, but because they are part of one another and are whole when together. That also matters because oneword for man is incusive of gender and other are not necessarily. But that is the distinction of merit unto itself here in this verse.


Then that is left off to advance the teaching in genesis 3.


Apparently, this whole distinction has been lost in this discussion.


In closing, your summation is flawed.

Based on what you know, from the discussion you have been engaged in, you have assumed too much upon your judgement.

That is not my distinction of merit being judgementally imposed on you.

it is my judgement that genesis 2 and the discussion are not relevant to genesis 2 as given, so far.

I'm not sure that I would agree with you that I am asking or requesting some sort of unreasonable amount of credible explanation for this array of contradictions found within the two versions of Genesis. Simply the fact that there are two versions at all is suspect. I do not know how familiar you are with the law and legal proceedings but in law, the "burden of proof" is defined as responsibility for proving a disputed charge or allegation. In criminal trials, the prosecution has the heavy burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

These are not minor or whimsical discrepancies here Spider. Anyone can read these two accounts, as noted and begin to compile a list. One of the most notable is:

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

This would imply they were made at the same time. Equals. The early Pagans would have probably gone along with this. But then, oh brother, look out:

Genesis 2:20-22
The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman.

A helper?? What the?? That's pretty contradictory, spider. Can you help me out with that one? I’m asking you in a friendly way here. There is clearly an agenda being employed as it relates to this second myth.

We can start there and move on if you like.

You can't tell who wrote the books of Genesis from their current form. According to the Bible, Moses grew up in the courts of the Egyptians. If he was able to read and write anything, it was Egyptian hieroglyphs. So at some point, someone(s) must have translated the hieroglyphs. Perhaps multiple translators worked on the translation? I don't know. But to assume that a document which we don't even have anymore (the Egyptian Hieroglyphic version of the Torah) was not written by one author is pure speculation.

It is obvious that it was not written by the same author. The story and the writing style, all different. Why would one author write two versions of the story anyway?

It is a pure speculation to state that Moses wrote it.

JB

No, it's historical precedent. The Bible says that Moses wrote the Torah, what evidence do you have that he didn't? None, it's simply your opinion. You are welcome to your opinion, but there is no reason why I should take your opinion over the Bible and the beliefs of learned theologians for the past 3,000+ years.

Well that’s convenient for you isn’t it? It might have been written by more than one author. Perhaps it was only written by Moses but then a real misogynist ass did some of the transcribing and wala! We have a completely contradictory account of events. Alrighty then....come on spider.

This will ask that you suspend your belief that the earth is only 6000 years old. I don’t know if that can be done but I think if you are really honest with yourself for one moment. At the very least you can argue the premise.

Human civilizations date back as far as the Neolithic. For all intensive purposes, the excavations of these sites have painted a picture of an earth based religion. Here is the supportive evidence for these findings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catal_Huyuk#Religion

Now based on that little Goddess figurine there, whether or not you want to believe the evidence that supports an Earth/Goddess religious source, solely on that figurine, I think they had a concept of momma? Don’t you? These people ALWAYS understood mother. They had been witnessing both human females and animals giving birth. They had watched birds and reptiles laying eggs as well. They knew what a mom was. Christianity at it’s dawning, some 5000 years ago would have been in direct opposition with these earlier held beliefs. Thus we have version 2 of Genesis. All of these earlier cultures have their religious roots based in some form of earth/goddess spirituality. Even your ancient Hebrews.

The Hebrew Goddess is a 1967 book by Jewish historian and anthropologist Raphael Patai. In this book, Patai argues that the Jewish religion historically had elements of polytheism, especially the worship of goddesses and a cult of the mother goddess. The book supports the theory through the interpretation of archaeological and textual sources as evidence for veneration of feminine beings. Hebrew "goddesses" identified in the book include Asherah, Anath, Astarte, Ashima, the cherubim in Solomon's Temple, the Matronit (Shekhina), and the personified Shabbat Bride. The later editions of the book were expanded to include recent archaeological discoveries and the rituals of unification (Yichudim) which are to unite God with his Shekinah.

Helper


If Eve was created to be Adam's helper, what was Adam's purpose? That's a more complex question and isn't fully answered until the New Testament. Adam was created to be the head of a family. Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." makes it clear that men and women are to form couples, which are the nucleus of a family. Genesis 2:20 "...but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him." makes it clear that Adam needed someone to help him fulfill his purpose.

Adam's purpose and the very purpose of all humans is to bring glory to God. Adam's job (and Eve as his helper) was to create a family and lead that family in a godly manner. Adam was to be the spiritual leader of the family and the provider. According to the Bible, the woman's place is as her husbands closest friend and most trusted advisor. The husband is given final say in matters, because someone must have final say, otherwise difficulties could arise.

I don't have an opinion. I don't know who wrote any of it. I suspect Moses did not, but it really doesn't matter. It would be interesting to know the facts but no one has any proof of any of it. It is all just opinion.

I have already explained why those stories aren't contradictory, I don't plan to explain it again.



I find it interesting that you speak to me in a condescending manner and expect me to take the time and effort to discuss things with you. If you are willing to be insulting and condescending when you ask the question, why should I expect better treatment when I give the response?

Once you have apologized for how you have spoken to me, i will consider further discussions with you. You don't have to like my beliefs, but you will treat me with the same respect that I give you, if you expect an answer.

So you are unable to explain the contradictions, nor any of this other evidence. Fair enough. I wait for another fundie who will attempt it. You have been HORRIBLY disrespectful of me on these forums spider. Referring to me as your ex wife, or being like her in some unclear respect, the yelling, the abrasive tone. I have asked that you debate. If you can not and simply want to revert to your usual method of “I don’t like you so I refuse to discuss anything”. What do you expect me to do about that?

Krisma,

Why do you want to debate Bible inconsistencies? What is your agenda? Just curious.

JB

Its fun and I find it educational. Probably similar to a lot of other folks I would imagine. What about you JB?

Krimsa,

Your behavior is passive-aggressive. You insult the person you are discussing with, but when called on it you bring up imagined past slights. I am telling you this, so that you are aware of your own behavior. I'm not bothered by it and I won't try to explain or apologize for imagined insults. Everybody must eventually choose to believe what he or she will believe, if you wish to be delusional (believe something which is in opposition to the facts), be my guest.

A similar MO is used by most non-Christians here. Insult Christians until they a) Leave or b) insult you back. Either way, you win! If the person leaves, you can claim victory through forfeit. If the person insults you back, you can claim hypocrisy and proclaim that said person could not possibly be a Christian. With the insult, you get the added bonus that you can ignore their arguments and evidence and instead focus on their statements and your own appraisal of their character.

Spider by your own admition, you have been quite volatile in your method of discussion. You have referred to me in an inappropriate manner; you have used caps unnecessarily to get your point across. I don’t think this is imagined seeing as several others on forum have actually called you on it.

I was being completely patient in this debate and asked that you explain some contradictions. I even went out of my way to say "I am asking you this in a friendly manner” so there would be no perceived misinterpretations. Nope, not good enough. You just want to take on this victim role every time you have no answer to a question.

I ask you again, how am I to handle that and what do you expect me to do here?

I posted my agenda on the agenda thread.

I like to explore my personal truth and get a feel for what others believe but ultimately my agenda is to expose the false teachings of the New testament as the plagiarized forgeries they are.

“The New Testament, the Church and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso (pronounced Peso) family, who were Roman aristocrats. The New Testament and all the characters in it - Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, John the Baptist - all are fictional. The Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story to a specific time and place in history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people, such as the Herods, Gamaliel, the Roman procurators, etc. But Jesus and everyone involved with him were created (that is fictiotional!) characters.”

JB

Krimsa,

Once again, I see no reason to discuss anything with you, because you are calling me a liar. I had totally forgotten that I wasn't going to respond to your posts anymore and now I remember why. I hope that you can find some peace and let go of your anger. Your lashing out at everyone who disagrees isn't healthy. I know that you were probably hurt at some time in the past and need healing, I pray that the Holy Spirit can comfort you and ease you of your burdens.

Interesting JB. No. I don’t have any real "agenda" to speak of. Certainly nothing as clear cut as your own. I have studied anthropology, both physical and cultural, as well as archeology in school. So I find the subject matter exciting and I enjoy discussing it provided it can remain civil.