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

I'm glad to have had it. Still, however, we've run into numerous problems throughout the course of this debate with regards to the arguments Pro makes, and I shall outline them below: 1) Complete failure to meet Burden Of Proof - At the very beginning of this debate, Pro proclaimed that his BOP was to demonstrate that the first two chapters of Genesis did not contain any contradictions, and yet beyond appeals to incredulity, he has proven himself completely incapable of fulfilling that BOP. Yet again, he claims there isn't any "repetition of stories", but considering that the vast bulk of the arguments I have made have gone completely unaddressed by Pro, I'd say precisely the opposite is true. In contrast, I have clearly and succinctly showed the contradictions inherent in the text, and I have rebutted Pro's attempts to counter them. 2) Being highly mistaken about authorship - In Round 3, I made reference to the Documentary Hypothesis, which stipulates that Genesis is a collection of stories by a number of different authors that were then later put together by editors. This in turn would adequately explains why there is contradictory information between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2:4-25. Pro disputes this and makes appeals to the "traditional" view that Moses wrote it all by himself. Pro links to a Wikipedia source, but if he'd followed a certain link on the page that would have lead him to the Documentary Hypothesis article (1), he would have found the following passage: The hypothesis was developed in the 18th and 19th centuries from the attempt to reconcile inconsistencies in the biblical text. By the end of the 19th century it was generally agreed that there were four main sources, combined into their final form by a series of redactors, R. These four sources came to be known as the Yahwist, or Jahwist, J (J being the German equivalent of the English letter Y); the Elohist, E; the Deuteronomist, D, (the name comes from the Book of Deuteronomy, D's contribution to the Torah); and the Priestly Writer, P. In other words, even scholars agree that the Bible is deeply flawed, hence why it's incredibly likely it had different authors. 3) The Hebrew Diversion - Another tactic of Pro's has been to make the appeal that we can't possibly consider there to be any contradictions in the scripture because it's translated out of the original language of Hebrew. Putting aside for a moment that this still casts a damning indictment on the reliability of the Bible since if God actually exists then the Bible should be as "perfect" as God seemingly is regardless of what language it is in, not once during this debate has Pro actually ever given us the super special true translations. Regardless, either way Pro loses this argument: either the translations are faulty and it produces a damning verdict on how coherent and sense making the scriptures are, or the translations are correct and the contradictions absolutely stand. 4) Arguments from Presupposition and Ignorance blind Pro to the contradictions - Pro genuinely doesn't seem to understand exactly how the contradictions work. For starters, he assumes without evidence that either a sole author existed or that the multiple authors were working together, even though I've demonstrated the very real possibility that the authors were separated by periods of up to 100 years and very likely didn't have access to others' work. Furthermore, it's not just a case of a "mention of something that was talked about before", it's events happening in one order where previously they had happened in another. Case in point, the fact that man gets created before woman and before other animals and plant life in Genesis 2:7, but gets created after them alongside woman in Genesis 1. It's all very well Pro just making a blanket statement that Genesis 2:4 is "not an introduction, but a closing verse to the account of creation of the universe", but this does not remotely address the detail I went into to demonstrate exactly the opposite. Furthermore, Pro's plea that "nothing says those (plants, animals, humans) were fully created" is nothing more than special pleading. There's nothing that says that they weren't either, and I already highlighted the definitions of key Biblical terms, like the fact that "herbs bearing seed" refers to fully grown plants that have grains, legumes, seeds, and some vegetables. It says that God created them, and generally references to creation generally mean that they become life, as evidenced by when God creates man out of dust. 5) The Eden Problem - A big sticking point in this debate has been the topic of Eden. Pro continues to insist that the hypothetical Eden was located in heaven. A constant contention I have had with this is it makes absolutely no sense. Pretty much the entirety of Genesis 1 and 2 centres around God creating the earth, as well as creating man and woman (or just man in Genesis 2:7) as well. It is logically ridiculous that all those pages would be devoted to the creation of Earth and yet man and woman would be inexplicably not put on it. Clearly, a contradiction. Pro ignores the reference I make to Genesis 2:10-14, which explicitly talks about rivers coming out of Eden to fill the Earth. Furthermore, Pro bizarrely says "that God did doesn"t in anyway mean people can access to it if they want, God did that out of Anger, to make Adam know he will never go back again until he dies. " I was never suggesting that people hypothetically can access the Garden if they want, indeed that is what I was suggesting with the Cherubims and the flaming sword as a BARRIER to any kind of free entry. Again, it's a really simple chain of logic: Premise A Adam and Eve have been kicked out of the Garden of Eden. Premise B God has assigned armed Cherubims to guard the Garden of Eden. Logic 1 Adam and Eve are on Earth. Logic 2 There must be the chance they would disobey God again. Logic 3 There's absolutely no need for God to protect Eden from Adam if the planet Adam and Eve is on (Earth) is different from where God is (Heaven) since Adam can't get to where God is. Conclusion Eden must hypothetically be located on Earth. QED. That concludes my arguments. Pro has, as mentioned, failed to meet his BOP, and I have decisively showed the contradictions inherent in the text. Vote Con. Sources: 1) . http://en.wikipedia.org...