Genesis 2 is a continuation of Genesis 1 and doesn't contradict it.

Thanks for the response. Objective 1 - All new account of creation started in Genesis 2:4 Pro claims that the "author" isn't recounting the same story again as part of his defence for why Genesis 2 doesn't contradict Genesis 1. Therein lies a particular problem, as Pro assumes without evidence that the entirety of Genesis 1 and 2 were written by one author. However, theologians in both mainline and liberal fields as well as secularists, consider the "Documentary Hypothesis" more likely, which means that Genesis had multiple authors (1). This would go some way to explaining why a new creation story gets established in Genesis 2:4, as it was a different author writing it. Pro then goes through a line by line explanation of the passage of Genesis 2:4-9 that I quoted in Round 2, and claims the following: a) "[Genesis 2:4] is the true account ( the one mentioned in Genesis 1) of the creation of the heavens and earth, when the lord made them" -Except that as I pointed out, an entirely new order of events gets established for creation from Genesis 2:4 onwards, so it can't be the same. b) "and all the flora before it actually grew on earth, for the lord did not cause it to rain on earth since he created it, and there were no living men yet to work the land" -Contradicted by the explicit creation of man and woman in Genesis 1:27. According to the Bible, man and woman had in fact already been created. c) "But God caused it to rain on the whole face of the land" -At this point, I would like to bring up a discussion that Pro and I had on the forums, in the thread that lead to us having this debate (2). In the thread, Pro says that he is an Old Earth Creationist. Being that that is the case, it therefore follows that Pro believes that the days mentioned in Genesis mean a considerably longer timespan than the traditional definition of "days". With that being said, this causes a contradiction because Pro wants us to believe that plants had been created as well as water in Genesis 1, and yet wants to also claim that somehow rain was non-existent. This is special pleading, and considering that Pro is conjecturing interpretations into the scripture that are not even remotely hinted at, the existence of water in Genesis 1 means that that would have included rain. d) "(God made man from the dust of the ground of earth, and m to be alive ( here God told us about 2 ingredients only, it deosn't lean he didn't use more.))" -Why does Pro somehow think I was considering the "ingredients" part important? Again, the objection is it establishes a different order of events from Genesis 1, because this time round in Genesis 2:7 it is man that is created first. e) "This one is clear Eden is a Garden that already exists, nothing says it's on earth" and "In this new Garden that God made , God made a variety of trees, including 2 special trees , the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge" -Nothing says it wasn't on earth either, and as we'll see, Pro doesn't address a particularly damning bit of evidence in my favour. Pro also quotes from Genesis 3:23, claiming that this proves Eden wasn't on Earth, but that verse can just as easily be interpreted to mean purely that Adam was assigned to start working for his food where previously he never had to, and that the "ground from whence he was taken" purely refers to the moment he was created from the dust. And again, Pro's interpretation doesn't take account of Genesis 3:24, as there'd be no need to have armed guards at Eden if it was in an area that Adam couldn't get to on Earth. Objective 2 - Establishing Contradictions I simply meant, with John 5:16-17, to show something particularly odd about the claim in Genesis 2:2-3 that God rested, in light of the fact that the former verse claims that he never rests. Still, I'll avoid this in future. Humans And Other Animals - Pro claims that it was just the seeds and fauna and kinds created in Genesis, however, in Genesis 11-12, it explicitly says that "grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself" are created. A "herb" is defined as "a plant without a strong woody stem or trunk" (3). In other words, these are fully grown plants. And likewise the trees in being created are therefore fully grown trees that also have a whole load of fruit. So Pro's explanation doesn't hold up, because Genesis 1 quite clearly describes the plants and trees coming into full bloom first. Time It Took To Create Heavens And Earth - Pro essentially makes an appeal about bad translations, but this makes for a damning indictment of the ability for the Bible to be coherent, regardless of what language it's in. Pro comes up with utter conjecture trying to substitute "in the day" with "when", but provides nothing to back up what is a convoluted interpretation far simpler explained by stating that the author who worked on Genesis 2:4-25 meant exactly one day. Plants - As highlighted above by myself, herbs bearing seed refer to fully grown plants, and trees are defined as a "plant with a strong woody stem such as a shrub, bush, or tree", and the only seeds being referred to are those within the fruit on trees, and those "bearing seeds" on herbs are defined as "generally understood to mean grains (wheat, oats, corn, rice, rye, barley, millet, etc.), seeds (sunflower seeds, pumpkin seeds, sesame, flax, etc.), legumes (soybeans, kidney beans, lentils, split peas, peanuts, etc.), and other foods containing seed, some of which we call vegetables today (eggplant, bell pepper, pumpkins, cucumbers, tomatoes, okra, squash, melons, etc.)" (3). It is never ever mentioned in Genesis 1 that they are not created alive. This is pure un-evidenced conjecture on Pro's part. And I've already demonstrated the garden must have been on Earth, not to mention the logical silliness of creating Earth and yet not having man make his home on it in Eden. The simpler explanations are the best ones, and Con's explanation is ridiculously convoluted and far fetched. Fowls, and other animals - Pro fails to grasp the fact that Genesis 1 explicitly mentions only water as to how fowls and other animals were created, while Genesis 2:19 explicitly only mentions the dry ground. Pro irrelevantly talks about fauna and flora again, ignoring that the quoted passages from this section refer only to ANIMALS. The contradiction stands. Adam and trees - Nowhere in Genesis 2, or Genesis 3 for that matter, is there any mention of a "garden next to the Garden of Eden". I suspect Pro has made this up. Other than that, again there are logical problems with claiming Eden wasn't on Earth, because nothing in Genesis 2 implies it WASN'T on Earth, and again there'd be no need to have the armed Cherubims if God didn't think Adam or anyone else would try to enter it on Earth. Water - Pro quite simply cannot escape from the fact that Genesis 2 explicitly claims the Earth was completely dry, and that water only came to it after it rained. That fact alone completely cripples his argument, because while dry land is depicted to follow an entirely water filled Earth in Genesis 1, oceans and rivers are depicted to follow dry land in Genesis 2:10-14. Speaking of which, this demonstrates an Eden on Earth, since the river in Eden parts four ways and heads into other areas of Earth. Eden - Again, the "eastern Garden" IS Eden. The line is "eastward IN Eden", not "eastward OF Eden". And again, if Eden wasn't hypothetically located on Earth, then why the need for Cherubims armed with a flaming sword to keep Adam out if they were not located in the same area Adam and Eve were living, namely, Earth? The contradictions stand. Pro may now start his concluding round. Sources: (1) http://www.religioustolerance.org... (2) http://www.debate.org... (3) http://www.gilead.net...