08 Sep 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDo we have any idea when the two creation accounts were written? For example, I seem to recall reading somewhere that the second account was written upwards of 300 years prior to the first but I cannot remember where I read it...I will continue to look.
Again, for now the third time (not that counting is my forte), the second chapter is not a delineation of the creation, per se, but rather an amalgamation of events which followed the specific "genealogical annals" of the creation in the first chapter.
Note how the days are segmented in numbered order in chapter one, yet the conspicuous ab ...[text shortened]... ] contradiction. This presupposes an idiocy on the part of the writer which is without merit.
TheSkipper
08 Sep 06
Originally posted by TheSkipperFreakyKBH will deny the scholarship, but the second account comes
Do we have any idea when the two creation accounts were written? For example, I seem to recall reading somewhere that the second account was written upwards of 300 years prior to the first but I cannot remember where I read it...I will continue to look.
TheSkipper
from the Yahwist source stemma from 10th c. BCE and the first account
comes from a Priestly source dated 7th c. BCE. These conclusions are
based on the discipline of textual criticism applied to other ancient texts.
Nemesio
08 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI know precisely what you have said. I want you to confirm that the sentences
Again, for now the third time (not that counting is my forte), the second chapter is not a delineation of the creation, per se, but rather an amalgamation of events which followed the specific "genealogical annals" of the creation in the first chapter.
are clearly out of order in the second chapter relative to the first one.
The second reads (in summary):
There were no plants of the field or grass on the earth. (5)
And God formed man out of the dust of the ground. (7)
And God created Eden and made it grow with vegetation. (8-9)
And God formed animals. (19)
Nemesio
09 Sep 06
Originally posted by NemesioIf you know precisely what has been said, then you are already in possession of the answer to your quandry. The second chapter is not a delineation. Force what you may upon the text, but textual criticism just ain't going to allow it.
I know precisely what you have said. I want you to confirm that the sentences
are clearly out of order in the second chapter relative to the first one.
The second reads (in summary):
There were no plants of the field or grass on the earth. (5)
And God formed man out of the dust of the ground. (7)
And God created Eden and made it grow with vegetation. (8-9)
And God formed animals. (19)
Nemesio
09 Sep 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat I'm doing isn't text criticism; I used the term (properly) in a post to TheSkipper.
If you know precisely what has been said, then you are already in possession of the answer to your quandry. The second chapter is not a delineation. Force what you may upon the text, but textual criticism just ain't going to allow it.
I love when I hit the easy questions that may lead to something, you assert that the
answer is clearly in a previous post. This is a cute little smokescreen device.
But, the fact is, you have not yet consented that the logical reading order of chapter 2
(wherein, the author expresses that there is no vegetation, forms humankind, and then
forms animals) is to be rejected, that it is to be understood in a sort of 'Pulp Fiction' sort
of way. Can you provide any guesses why the author would create such a deliberately
confused account following the clearly delineated one?
Two key questions:
Do you have any explanation for why the author would specifically state that vegetation
didn't exist immediately before the author relates the formation of humankind?
God notices that it is 'not good for man to be alone' and forms animalkind. Do you have
any explanation for this if He had already created all of animalkind previously, especially
after telling the birds to be fruitful and multiply?
Nemesio
09 Sep 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMy text-critical understanding of the two discrete texts doesn't force anything.
Force what you may upon the text, but textual criticism just ain't going to allow it.
By contrast, your insistence that they are harmonious forces one to reinterpret the
seconds literal account with a flip-flopping of verses.
Nemesio
09 Sep 06
Originally posted by NemesioTherefore, by your logic, whenever creation is discussed throughout the rest of Scripture, order must be inferred regardless of the emphasis of the passage. That's just plain loopy.
My text-critical understanding of the two discrete texts doesn't force anything.
By contrast, your insistence that they are harmonious forces one to reinterpret the
seconds literal account with a flip-flopping of verses.
Nemesio
Let's (again) take a look at the fundamental differences in the two passages, using verse four of chapter two as the division.
Q. What occurs in chapter one which does not occur in chapter two?
A. Numbering of the days and delineation of creation classifications within the specific parameter of those days.
Q. What occurs in the division of the two accounts, which does not occur in the first account?
A. Thulduth.
Q. Why is that significant?
A. Thulduth refers to the genealogical information which is about to follow.
It's really quite simple and logical. The first account concerns the exact order of Creation while the second account refers to man specifically, without concern or deference to order, per se.
For more specifics, I found a handy website that sheds a reliable amount of light on the issue for you:
http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html
09 Sep 06
Originally posted by Nemesio
Two key questions:
Do you have any explanation for why the author would specifically state that vegetation
didn't exist immediately before the author relates the formation of humankind?
God notices that it is 'not good for man to be alone' and forms animalkind. Do you have
any explanation for this if He had already created all of animalkind previously, especially
after telling the birds to be fruitful and multiply?
09 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Therefore, by your logic, whenever creation is discussed throughout the rest of Scripture, order must be inferred regardless of the emphasis of the passage. That's just plain loopy.
Well, if the second story demonstrates an order that is distinct from the first, then it would be
'plain loopy' not to wonder what the heck the author was thinking. (I am, of course, humoring you
and pretending I believe it was a single author. My explanation has the principal advantage of not
requiring harmony between the two stories).
Let's try it this way: Here are two stories. You tell me if they are reconcilable.
Story #1:
At 7:00pm, the Bartender notices His bar's tables are empty and puts peanuts on them.
At 8:00pm, the Bartender opens for business and many patrons come in. He encourages them to 'Drink and be merry!'
At 9:00pm, the Bartender's favorite patron, Adam, walks in for a drink.
Story #2:
As of yet, all tables of the bar are empty. And Adam walks into the bar. And the Bartender
pulls up a special table and puts peanuts on them. The Bartender worries that Adam is lonely.
And some patrons come into the bar.
What do you think? If these two stories were in the same book, would you say that they are
in harmony? If you find that they are in harmony, do you feel that the author did a reasonable
job presenting the material in the second story in a cogent fashion?
Nemesio
09 Sep 06
Originally posted by NemesioNow I am forced to believe that is you who is being obtuse. You've already been shown the decisive difference between the two passages in verse four of chapter two; you've already been shown the decisive difference between an account which specifies number and order with one which concerns itself with the beginnings of geneaology and yet you persist in forcing a Western reading on an ancient text.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Therefore, by your logic, whenever creation is discussed throughout the rest of Scripture, order must be inferred regardless of the emphasis of the passage. That's just plain loopy.
Well, if the second story demonstrates an order that is distinct from the first, then it would be
'plain loopy' not to wonder what ...[text shortened]... sonable
job presenting the material in the second story in a cogent fashion?
Nemesio[/b]
And, chances are very great that you haven't spent an iota of time at the suggested website.
If you think that by simply repeating a stance over and over in light of evidence to the contrary is evidence of an open mind, I have nothing else to offer, I'm afraid.
10 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLOL!
Now I am forced to believe that is you who is being obtuse. You've already been shown the decisive difference between the two passages in verse four of chapter two; you've already been shown the decisive difference between an account which specifies number and order with one which concerns itself with the beginnings of geneaology and yet you persist in fo dence to the contrary is evidence of an open mind, I have nothing else to offer, I'm afraid.
Words in any language have to processed in time: from right to left (in Hebrew)
and up to down. If the sentences read like so:
There were no peanuts on the table in the empty bar.
And Adam walked in.
And other patrons walked in.
then one takes for granted that nothing occurred between any two sentences, especially something
like 'other patrons walked in before Adam,' or 'the bartender secretly put peanuts on the table.'
To suggest that these presumptions about the sequential nature of language is the product of my
Occidental exposure is ludicrous.
The only reason why you are even considering this bizarre and untenable interpretation as reasonable
is because of your insistence that the Bible is inerrant! That is, rather than looking at this
story and saying: Gee whiz...the sequential order in which the second story proceeds is rather
discordant with the first; you say 'I'VE GOT TO HARMONIZE THESE NO MATTER WHAT!'
Consequently, you have to accept my bar story above as reasonable, even though it isn't.
It's bloody tragic, because you are obviously reasonably intelligent. But your 'faith' (which I don't
believe is faith in any meaningful sense) obscures your ability to read anything meaningful from
the text.
I'll wait for you to answer my questions above, which I will reiterate for you:
Originally posted by Nemesio
Two key questions:
Do you have any explanation for why the author would specifically state that vegetation
didn't exist immediately before the author relates the formation of humankind?
God notices that it is 'not good for man to be alone' and forms animalkind. Do you have
any explanation for this if He had already created all of animalkind previously, especially
after telling the birds to be fruitful and multiply?
And, in regards to my bar story: If these two stories were in the same book, would you say that they are
in harmony? If you find that they are in harmony, do you feel that the author did a reasonable
job presenting the material in the second story in a cogent fashion?
Nemesio
10 Sep 06
Originally posted by NemesioWords in any language have to processed in time: from right to left (in Hebrew) and up to down.
LOL!
Words in any language have to processed in time: from right to left (in Hebrew)
and up to down. If the sentences read like so:
There were no peanuts on the table in the empty bar.
And Adam walked in.
And other patrons walked in.
then one takes for granted that nothing occurred between any two sentences, especially something
like 'other pat ...[text shortened]...
job presenting the material in the second story in a cogent fashion?
Nemesio
Let's test your hypothesis in Hewbrew. Psalm 136:5-9
"To Him who made the heavens with skill,
For His lovingkindness is everlasting;
To Him who spread out the earth above the waters,
For His lovingkindness is everlasting;
To Him who made the great lights,
For His lovingkindness is everlasting;
The sun to rule by day,
For His lovingkindness is everlasting;
The moon and stars to rule by night,
For His lovingkindness is everlasting."
According to your rules for Hebrew syntax, order is inferred by its appearance within the sentence and/or passage. Therefore, the celestial creation occured in part (heavens with skill), then God went to creating and dividing the atmosphere (earth above the waters), only to return to creating the luminaries in the heavens (sun, moon and stars) again. There you go: the Bible is full of contradiction, ain't it?
As you have suggested, there are rules to any language. The 'tell' in this passage is the natural division between the accounts, which has been pointed out now several times. Namely, chapter two, verse four.
'The beginning which is not the beginning' is accounted for in the first passage. This accounts for the beginning of creation, of the order in which God brought everything into existence. This account ends with:
"Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts." Gen. 2:1
The next account considers the apex of God's creation, man, signifying the same in the pivotal fourth verse. One account is for all of creation, the other is specifically for the focal point of that creation.
Your second act of the peanuts-in-a-bar situation would look more like this, transliterated:
Adam hungered. The Bartender brought forth peanuts (you remember--- how could you forget: you just read about it just a few sentences ago--- those peanuts He had put out before the bar even opened?), but these were not satisfactory.
The Bartender knew that Adam hungered for human companionship (which, thankfully, was entirely possible owing to the fact that a crowd of people had entered the bar right after opening).
You call it bizarre and untenable in the face of expert, scholarly evidence otherwise. What's a guy to do!
11 Sep 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOMG!
According to your rules for Hebrew syntax, order is inferred by its appearance within the sentence and/or passage. Therefore, the celestial creation occured in part (heavens with skill), then God went to creating and dividing the atmosphere (earth above the waters), only to return to creating the luminaries in the heavens (sun, moon and stars) again. There you go: the Bible is full of contradiction, ain't it?
WHAT A LOAD OF BALONEY!
This Psalm doesn't have a bit to do with Creation, so why would syntax have anything to do
with it? And, how does praising the stars first and then the sun and then the moon have anything
to do with the order in which they were created?!?
NOTHING! THIS HAS TO BE THE WORST STRAWMAN EVER TO INFEST THIS FORUM!
By contrast, when the author of Genesis 2 indicated that there was no vegetation covering the
earth and then says man was created and then said man was lonely and then
says the animals were created, we are clearly talking about CREATION. Why would
the author choose this order unless this author believed that this was the order?!?
Nemesio
11 Sep 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou feel that your 'transliteration' makes sense in light of the second story? You would
Your second act of the peanuts-in-a-bar situation would look more like this, transliterated:
Adam hungered. The Bartender brought forth peanuts (you remember--- how could you forget: you just read about it just a few sentences ago--- those peanuts He had put out before the bar even opened?), but these were not satisfactory.
The Bartender knew that Ada ...[text shortened]... rely possible owing to the fact that a crowd of people had entered the bar right after opening).
applaud the author of the story for his cogent and logical presentation?
So, the two stories of Creation go like this?
There was no vegetation. (Genesis 2)
There was vegetation. (Genesis 1)
Animals were formed and told to be fruitful and multiply. (Genesis 1)
There was man. (Genesis 1/2)
There was extra vegetation. (Genesis 2, Eden)
Man was lonely. (Genesis 2)
Animals were formed. (Genesis 2)
This is your great harmony? This is the sign of a good author? This is the sign of a deep understanding
of the universe and the divine?
Nemesio
12 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioThis Psalm doesn't have a bit to do with Creation, so why would syntax have anything to do with it?
OMG!
WHAT A LOAD OF BALONEY!
This Psalm doesn't have a bit to do with Creation, so why would syntax have anything to do
with it? And, how does praising the stars first and then the sun and then the moon have anything
to do with the order in which they were created?!?
NOTHING! THIS HAS TO BE THE WORST STRAWMAN EVER TO INFEST THIS FORUM!
By ...[text shortened]... thor choose this order unless this author believed that this was the order?!?
Nemesio
I see. So, according to your hypotheses, Hebraic rules of syntax only apply to passages pertaining (as determined by you, 'natch) to Creation? Your rules are getting a little complex, if you ask me. And--- call me old-fashioned--- but as the passage from Psalms specifically uses terms which connote creation ('who made' twice and once for 'who spread'😉, I'd say it's preferrable to let the text speak for itself.
Besides, we're just taking your rules to their logical conclusion. Since you are blowing past the clearly marked delineation found in chapter two verse four, why stop there?