Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou are being disingenuous. The Psalm is in praise of creation; it is not a creation story. It's
[b]This Psalm doesn't have a bit to do with Creation, so why would syntax have anything to do with it?
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 passa ...[text shortened]... ng past the clearly marked delineation found in chapter two verse four, why stop there?[/b]
contents do not delineate any sort of order in which the sun, moon or starts are created. It's
syntax only offers the order in which things were praised by the Psalmist. For example:
Praise all the Bartender and His mighty stuff.
Praise the peanuts.
Praise the patrons.
Praise the tables.
See? This doesn't entail which was put in the bar first.
By contrast:
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb
of the field before it grew; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain
upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground. ...
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living
soul. (your translation)
The word 'before' signifies a timeframe. The first sentence sets a stage in any logical reader's
mind: Before X...there was Y. And, once Y (which was lonely), Z was formed.
BUT: according to the first story, X was made first, then Z, then Y!
This is the contradiction, FreakyKBH. The order of the second story's presentation of material
is not only problematic, but the words which clearly indicate temporality. Why would verse 4
precede verse 5 except to indicate that Man was created before vegetation? Why insert
this at all? If it was patent from the previous story that there was vegetation, then why wouldn't
our author write: there was no vegetation, but before God made Man, He made vegetation.
The (obvious) logical reason is because this author believed that there was no vegetation
before Man. This author is setting a different stage.
I'll ask my questions again. Let's see if you answer them:
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?
Originally posted by NemesioYou are being disingenuous. The Psalm is in praise of creation; it is not a creation story. It's contents do not delineate any sort of order in which the sun, moon or starts are created.
You are being disingenuous. The Psalm is in praise of creation; it is not a creation story. It's
contents do not delineate any sort of order in which the sun, moon or starts are created. It's
syntax only offers the order in which things were praised by the Psalmist. For example:
Praise all the Bartender and His mighty stuff.
Praise the peanuts.
P lkind previously, especially
after telling the birds to be fruitful and multiply?
Disingenuousity, thy name is Nemesio.
Congratulations! You've aptly classified the psalm as a praise of God's lovingkindness as evidenced in creation. You have also accurately surmised that the order in which the psalmist is speaking of creation has nothing to do with the order in which creation was wrought. Why are you having such difficulty making the same distinction for the passage which follows v. four?
While not a praise passage, the account which follows v. four c. two is made distinct from the delineation of the numbered order of the passage which preceeds it. We have several clues to aid us in making such a distinction.
For instance, using the artificial separations, from c. one v. one through c. two v. three, the numbered ordered account uses the solitary aleim or Elohim, or God when ascribing the work and/or evaluation being done (bra, or he-created; uira, or and-he-is-seeing; uiamr, or and-he-is-saying; and etc.) some thirty times--- practically every sentence. The first of two exceptions come in c. one v. two, where the Spirit of God (uruch aleim) is said to be vibrating over the surface of the waters.
The second exception is in v.26 of the same chapter, when we are introduced to btzlmnu, or in-the-image-of-us, giving us an insight into the nature of this Elohim. So we see this pattern repeated, as stated, thirty times: "And God..." all the way up through c. two v. three, where God blesses the seventh day and rests from "all His work which God created and made."
Then comes the pivotal v. four:
"These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens..."
Suddenly, Yahweh Elohim, ieue aleim enters the scene, and is called as such for the rest of the account, until the serpent begins his trickery of the woman in c. three v. one. Curiously missing in this account is the word ium, or day--- or its counterparts, eium, or the-day; bium, or in-day; and ulimim, or and-for-days.
This is curious because 'day' appears 14 times from the beginning of the recreation account starting in c. one v. three, through c. two v. four, and once in the second passage: God's admonition to Adam concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in c. two v.17.
Not only are 'days' mentioned in terms of the general creation in the first account, they are used to decimate God's creative work nine times. However, not once is the term 'day' used (except as noted) in the second account, nor is any of the activity numbered in any other fashion.
and man became a living soul.[/i] (your translation)
That's weird: you left out v. six! That's probably because you realize that v. six is describing how v. five was possible. Without man to till the ground and cultivate the vegetation and without rain upon the earth, whence cometh the water? Thus, v. six.
Verse five of c. two does not contradict v.11 of c. one, as v.11 simply states the start of the process. In v.11 c. one, man is not around yet. In v. five c. two, doesn't state anything different: man is not around yet. Verse six simply explains the water source for how vegetation grew. The account does not then continue with God creating vegetation following the creation of man, but rather sprouting the most desirable of the plants and trees already created in the same Garden which He then placed Adam.
God notices that it is 'not good for man to be alone' and forms animalkind.
So we're supposed to imagine that--- somehow--- in one revolution around the sun, God created the animal kingdom and Adam named every single one of them? How much torture can the text take?
You can't be serious. Please tell me you don't believe this silliness you're trying to foster.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSmoke and mirrors. You still haven't answered my questions above and you've introduced the
[b]You are being disingenuous. The Psalm is in praise of creation; it is not a creation story. It's contents do not delineate any sort of order in which the sun, moon or starts are created.
Disingenuousity, thy name is Nemesio.
Congratulations! You've aptly classified the psalm as a praise of God's lovingkindness as evidenced in creation. You h ...[text shortened]... ease tell me you don't believe this silliness you're trying to foster.[/b]
red herring of a Psalm to distract from your hopeless case.
I will comment on one thing:
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
How much torture can the text take?
An allegorical reading of these two texts by two authors isn't tortured at all. By contrast the
absurd non-reconciliation that you have thus far failed to sell is just about as much torture as
a rational person can take.
For example, according to the first story, man was created last. In the second story, God
formed animals to keep man (having already been created) from being lonely. Somehow,
your brain hiccoughs around there and finds these mutually exclusive accounts as 'reconciled.'
That, I'm afraid, is torture.
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This is curious because 'day' appears 14 times from the beginning of the recreation account starting in c. one v. three, through c. two v. four, and [b]once in the second passage: God's admonition to Adam concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in c. two v.17.
Not only are 'days' mentioned in terms of the general creation in the first account, they are used to decimate God's creative work nine times. However, not once is the term 'day' used (except as noted) in the second account, nor is any of the activity numbered in any other fashion.[/b]
One more comment: This sort of observation lends credence to the idea of separate authorship;
separate vernaculars and usages of vocabularies (as well as the term used in loco God) are
one of the text-critical tools that you don't recognize, of course.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioIf you don't mind...
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]This is curious because 'day' appears 14 times from the beginning of the recreation account starting in c. one v. three, through c. two v. four, and [b]once in the second passage: God's admonition to Adam concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in c. two v.17.
Not only are 'days' mentioned in ter ...[text shortened]... od) are
one of the text-critical tools that you don't recognize, of course.
Nemesio[/b]
This is an excerpt from:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2194
Are there differences in the inspired narratives of Genesis 1 and 2? Of course there are. But differences do not necessarily imply contradictions, much less multiple authorship. The real question is this: Is there a purpose to these variations? Indeed there is. Furthermore, there are a number of factors that militate against the notion that Genesis 1 and 2 are independent and contradictory accounts of the creation.
First, careful analysis reveals that there is deliberate purpose in the individuality of these two sections of Scripture. In Genesis 1 there is a broad outline of the events of the creation week, which reaches its climax with the origin of mankind in the very image of God. In Genesis 2 there is the special emphasis upon man, the divine preparation of his home, the formation of a suitable mate, etc. Edward J. Young has a good statement of this matter:
There are different emphases in the two chapters...but the reason for these is obvious. Chapter 1 continues the narrative of creation until the climax, namely, man made in the image and likeness of God. To prepare the way for the account of the fall, chapter 2 gives certain added details about man’s original condition, which would have been incongruous and out of place in the grand, declarative march of chapter 1 (1960, p. 53).
This type of procedure was not unknown in the literary methodology of antiquity. Gleason Archer observed that the “technique of recapitulation was widely practiced in ancient Semitic literature. The author would first introduce his account with a short statement summarizing the whole transaction, and then he would follow it up with a more detailed and circumstantial account when dealing with matters of special importance” (1964, p. 118). These respective sections have a different literary motif. Genesis 1 is chronological, revealing the sequential events of the creation week, whereas Genesis 2 is topical, with special concern for man and his environment. [This procedure is not unknown elsewhere in biblical literature. Matthew’s account of the ministry of Christ is more topical, while Mark’s record is more chronological.]
Second, there is clear evidence that Genesis 2 was never an independent creation account. There are simply too many crucial elements missing for that to have been the case. For instance, there is no mention in Genesis 2 of the creation of the Earth, and there is no reference to the oceans or fish. There is no allusion to the Sun, Moon, and stars, etc. Archer has pointed out that there is not an origins record in the entire literature collection of the ancient Near East that omits discussing the creation of the Sun, Moon, seas, etc. (1982, p. 69). Obviously, Genesis 2 is a sequel to chapter 1. The latter presupposes the former and is built upon it.
Even Howard Johnston, who was (at least in part) sympathetic to the Documentary Hypothesis, conceded:
The initial chapter [Genesis 1] gives a general account of the creation. The second chapter is generally declared by critics to be a second account of the creation, but, considered in the light of the general plan, that is not an accurate statement. Evidently the purpose of this chapter is to show that out of all the creation we have especially to do with man. Therefore only so much of the general account is repeated as is involved in a more detailed statement concerning the creation of man. There is a marked difference of style in the two accounts, but the record is consistent with the plan to narrow down the story to man (1902, p. 90).
The following summary statement by Kenneth Kitchen is worthy of notice:
It is often claimed that Genesis 1 and 2 contain two different creation-narratives. In point of fact, however, the strictly complementary nature of the “two” accounts is plain enough: Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the centre of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. There is no incompatible duplication here at all. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism (1966, pp. 116-117, emp. in orig.).
Originally posted by xpoferensI've read the arguments you've quoted before, but they don't really demonstrate anything.
If you don't mind...
This is an excerpt from:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2194
Are there differences in the inspired narratives of Genesis 1 and 2? Of course there are. But differences do not necessarily imply contradictions, much less multiple authorship. The real question is this: Is there a purpose to these variations? Indeed there ...[text shortened]... immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism (1966, pp. 116-117, emp. in orig.).
Basically it reads: Many people say that there are differences, but there aren't.
Then it fails to discuss those differences, but simply provides a semi-explanation for why
differences in accounts might exist.
At the very least FreakyKBH began by looking at the original text and dissecting it until he
decided that animals can be simultaneously created before and after mankind and that this
was logical.
I won't waste my time citing website after website to which you won't give any credence and
perpetuate a citation war.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioMy native language is portuguese, not english, therefore, sometimes, instead of having all the trouble of writing in a foreign language, I prefer to quote.
I've read the arguments you've quoted before, but they don't really demonstrate anything.
Basically it reads: Many people say that there are differences, but there aren't.
Then it fails to discuss those differences, but simply provides a semi-explanation for why
differences in accounts might exist.
At the very least FreakyKBH began by looking at ...[text shortened]... er website to which you won't give any credence and
perpetuate a citation war.
Nemesio
...
It seems that you are completely ignoring the techniques used in ancient semitic literature.
Genesis was not written by a XXI century American; it was written by an Israelite circa 1450 - 1410 B.C. and that has definitely to be taken in consideration.
Regards
Originally posted by NemesioSmoke and mirrors. You still haven't answered my questions above and you've introduced the red herring of a Psalm to distract from your hopeless case.
Smoke and mirrors. You still haven't answered my questions above and you've introduced the
red herring of a Psalm to distract from your hopeless case.
I will comment on one thing:
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]How much torture can the text take?
An allegorical reading of these two texts by two authors isn't tortured at all. By c ...[text shortened]... e mutually exclusive accounts as 'reconciled.'
That, I'm afraid, is torture.
Nemesio[/b]
Of course it's smoke and mirrors: it solidly undermines what you insist. The psalm was introduced to refute your out-of-the-blue syntax rule regarding order. It served its purpose in that regard, and is now set aside.
Further, as has been mentioned earlier (as well as described in greater detail by xpoferens), the Hebraic structure found in the first two chapters of Genesis is very much in accord with other ancient literature, specifically, recapitulation).
By contrast the absurd non-reconciliation that you have thus far failed to sell is just about as much torture as a rational person can take.
I am not selling anything. You threw down a challenge that the two chapters contradict one another, and I have answered that challenge with evidence to the contrary. Reconciliation isn't the issue, as one cannot even look at the trees until they see the forest. Meaning, you wish to dissect the two accounts (trees) without first understanding the nature of the totality of the accounts (forest). You must first be able to view the writings within their proper historical framework, without attempting to superimpose upon its text and style 21st century Western sensibilities.
Originally posted by NemesioI kinda figured you would seize upon those distinctions as such a suggestion, but that was the risk we just had to take. However, this is just another example of looking closely but not close enough. While the account of man beginning in verse four introduces Yahweh, the account does not stay exclusive to the same.
One more comment: This sort of observation lends credence to the idea of separate authorship;
separate vernaculars and usages of vocabularies (as well as the term used in loco God) are
one of the text-critical tools that you don't recognize, of course.
Nemesio[/b]
It is obvious from this text alone that this God is multi-faceted, and that the different persons within the Godhead are being introduced as the Creator. The serpent harkens back to the first person mentioned in creation, even in the midst of the "LORD God's" activities with Adam and the woman. This is a clear sign that the author is making the distinction purposely, not because of information/language limitations.
Originally posted by NemesioAt the very least FreakyKBH began by looking at the original text and dissecting it until he decided that animals can be simultaneously created before and after mankind and that this was logical.
I've read the arguments you've quoted before, but they don't really demonstrate anything.
Basically it reads: Many people say that there are differences, but there aren't.
Then it fails to discuss those differences, but simply provides a semi-explanation for why
differences in accounts might exist.
At the very least FreakyKBH began by looking at ...[text shortened]... er website to which you won't give any credence and
perpetuate a citation war.
Nemesio
I said no such thing. I gave you credible and rational explanations for the purpose of clearing up misconceptions suggested by poor translations and/or mistakes in approach to an ancient piece of literature.
Originally posted by xpoferensGood source. Thanks for the support.
If you don't mind...
This is an excerpt from:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2194
Are there differences in the inspired narratives of Genesis 1 and 2? Of course there are. But differences do not necessarily imply contradictions, much less multiple authorship. The real question is this: Is there a purpose to these variations? Indeed there ...[text shortened]... immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism (1966, pp. 116-117, emp. in orig.).
Originally posted by xpoferensGenesis was not written by a single Israelite in the 15th c. BCE, but
Genesis was not written by a XXI century American; it was written by an Israelite circa 1450 - 1410 B.C. and that has definitely to be taken in consideration.
by many, many authors over the course of hundreds of years. An
analysis of the Hebrew using text-critical techniques reveals this to
be a certainty.
Indeed, the two creation stories in question were by different authors
separated by about 300 years.
This definitely has to be taken into consideration.
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Of course it's smoke and mirrors: it solidly undermines what you insist. The psalm was introduced to refute your out-of-the-blue syntax rule regarding order. It served its purpose in that regard, and is now set aside.
Citing this Psalm is as irrelevant as my quoting the Gospel of St John's
'Bread of Life' discourse and showing how allegorical speech proves
that Genesis must be allegorical!
The Psalm is a song of praise and thanksgiving for creation. I can be
jubilant about my parents before my grandparents, or my parents
before my children. It is not a commentary on who came first or next
or even on the priority of praising.
By contast, the second chapter of Genesis specifically relates the
barrenness of the earth's surface immediately before the formation of
man. You've yet to offer why the author would do so. The second
chapter also observes that man is lonely and God formed the animals
in response to this. You've yet to offer why the author would do so.
Further, as has been mentioned earlier (as well as described in greater detail by xpoferens), the Hebraic structure found in the first two chapters of Genesis is very much in accord with other ancient literature, specifically, recapitulation).
It is mentioned but unsupported. In fact, you keep mentioning it
and keep mentioning it in the desparate attempt that by repetition,
its failings as a theory will be ignored. I am familiar with the concept
of recapitulation in Hebraic literature (indeed, it is used in the Psalms
all the time). Recapitulation assumes that either the story was written
by one person and is merely reflecting on the earlier exposition, or
(more commonly) a second writer referencing an earlier writer for literary
purposes. Given that you are asserting that the former is the case,
such recapitulation would take the form of a reflection that was consistent
with the earlier account. For example, if Genesis 2 read:
After the vegetation was formed, and the stars placed in the sky, and
after the animals were grazing upon the earth, God decided that His
creation was incomplete without His likeness, and so he formed man
out of clay and breathed the breath of life into him.
(Or something like that...)
However, the second account specifically relates details which do not
recapitulate the first account -- recall, that recapitulate involves the
presenting anew sections of material related earlier. Indeed, the
handful of concordant details barely overlap with the earlier account,
which hardly resembles recapitular techniques. Furthermore, of the
details that do overlap, the order in which they overlap does not match
up (as I have repeatedly observed and you have repeatedly ignored).
These observations do not concord with recapitular practices in the
Hebrew Scriptures. This leads a person to conclude that either,
the author was utterly unfamiliar with Jewish recapitulation as a literary
genre (unlikely), the author was extremely confused with what he just
wrote a few lines earlier (unlikely), or the author was incompetent (unlikely).
More logical than any of these unlikely conclusions is that there were
two authors (very likely) and that the second author (of the first account)
was utterly unconcerned with the details of the earlier author (obviously,
otherwise the two accounts would concord more fluidly).
I am not selling anything. You threw down a challenge that the two chapters contradict one another, and I have answered that challenge with evidence to the contrary. Reconciliation isn't the issue, as one cannot even look at the trees until they see the forest. Meaning, you wish to dissect the two accounts (trees) without first understanding the nature of the totality of the accounts (forest). You must first be able to view the writings within their proper historical framework, without attempting to superimpose upon its text and style 21st century Western sensibilities.
It borders on infuriating when you inform me that I am imposing a 21st-cenutry
sensibility upon the text while at the same time you are insisting upon
Biblical literality, a concept totally foreign to Jewish sensibility (over
history!). Before one even can look at writings in their social millieu,
you have to look at the writings themselves -- the words used, the
sentence structure employed, the ideas related. These text-critical tools
are the backbone of providing an informed historical perspective. You
are repeatedly failing to do so, imposing instead the idea that the two
stories must be reconcilable and then contorting your mind to
great lengths to do so.
Again, it is about opened mindedness. I don't assume that the two
stories belong together or apart until the stories themselves tell me
which makes more sense. Given the out-of-orderedness of the second
one (something which you've repeatedly failed to explain), one is
compelled to conclude that they are to be thought of separately.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThe Psalm is a song of praise and thanksgiving for creation.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Of course it's smoke and mirrors: it solidly undermines what you insist. The psalm was introduced to refute your out-of-the-blue syntax rule regarding order. It served its purpose in that regard, and is now set aside.
Citing this Psalm is as irrelevant as my quoting the Gospel of St John's
'Bread of ...[text shortened]... one is
compelled to conclude that they are to be thought of separately.
Nemesio[/b]
As you have again stated, the psalm quoted is one of praise. As I am forced to repeat (with several pages to act as footnote support), the psalm was brought out as proof against your ridiculous claim that order of a sentence in Hebrew denotes order of occurance.
As readily as you can free the psalm of this 'order rule,' you shackle chapter two of Genesis with the same. For reasons unknown, only chapter two is held to this rule, despite the obvious sign posts pointing in a completely different direction. The first of this sign posts is verse four which you (thus far) have kept mum regarding.
The overwhelming sign post comes as a package deal: every phase of re-creation is both numbered and provided a time parameter, i.e., days. After the first general account is completed, the specific account related to the geneaological annals of man is neither numbered or boundaried within any time-specific parameter. Those sign posts are impossible to miss and should be enough evidence for any one to reach a rational conclusion.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]The Psalm is a song of praise and thanksgiving for creation.
As you have again stated, the psalm quoted is one of praise. As I am forced to repeat (with several pages to act as footnote support), the psalm was brought out as proof against your ridiculous claim that order of a sentence in Hebrew denotes order of occurance.[/b]
Um. Hello Mr Strawman. I did not say what you are claiming I said. I
said words are processed right to left (in Hebrew) and up to down.
That is, in the Psalm example, there would be no reason to suggest
the Psalmist wanted to praise the stars before the great lights, and
so on. So, when it reads:
God formed man.
Man was lonely.
God formed animals to be companions for man.
There is no logical reason to believe that the animals were made
first!
Second of all, the Psalm example is nothing like the Genesis 2 example
in that it is not a story. Obviously, you recognize that the events
in a story happen in some sort of sequence. The Psalm's sequence
doesn't denote order of creation because it isn't a Psalm telling the
story of creation. Similarly, we don't assume that the order of the
letters attributed to St Paul denotes the order in which he supposedly
wrote them.
By contrast, because the author of the second story begins with
'Before every plant was in the earth...and the Lord God formed man...,'
there is logical reason to believe that the author was indicating a
timeframe (the key word here is 'before' ). You have yet to provide
any explanation why the author would begin by specifically stating that
there was no vegetation immediately before stating that man was
formed. I eagerly await such an explanation, because any literal
reading of this text entails accepting that man predates the vegetation.
Nemesio