From: ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Differing accounts of creation in Genesis
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:39:04 GMT
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Simon Clippingdale (simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk) wrote:
: In article <1992Sep24.151622.7188@medtron.medtronic.com> ds0007@buhao (Dale Skiba) writes:
: >
: > There does not have to be a conflict, at least in the English
: > translations.  Please note that they have two different styles:
: >
: > 1st account:                |  2nd account
: >                             |
: > 1st this occurred           |  this occurred
: > 2nd then this occurred      |  this occurred
: >  ..                         |  ...
: > 7th lastly this occurrred.  |  this occurred
: >
: > [...]
: 
: 
: Sorry, but in the KJV at least there is a clear contradiction because the
: order of events *is* unambiguously specified in *each* account. (I note
: Weemba's post re. tenses in biblical Hebrew, but did the KJV translators
: really invent *all* the implied ordering?)
: 
: One mo' taaam with highlights:
: 
: #  1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle
: #  after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after
: #  his kind: and God saw that it was good.
: #
: #  1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
: #                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: #  and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl
: #  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: #  of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over
: #  every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
: 
: This clearly implies that the beasts were made first, *unless*:
: 

Yes, according to most theologins (especially the fundies) beasts were
made before man.  The first story has clear ordinal markers, so there is
no way to argue with this.

: (i) in verse 26, God is *proposing* to let man have dominion over the beasts
:     before He has actually made them,
: 
: *and*
: 
: (ii) verse 25 should have come later (certainly after 26), with the creation
:      of man somewhere in between.
: 
: No way could you read these two verses and come to this conclusion unless
: you were determined to deny a contradiction and already knew what was coming
: in 2:18 and 2:19, whereupon this is the place to start jumping through hoops,
: the latter verses being even less ambiguous:
: 
: #  2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be
: #  alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

I think most theologins agree that the helpmate is not animals, but Eve.

: #
: #  2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the
: #  field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see
: #                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: #  what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living
: #  creature, that was the name thereof.
:
: Adam clearly exists [2:19] before the beasts are made.
: 

When I ask this exact same question to fundies, they tell me that this
story is a sort of recap.  God brings the animals (which he has already
created) before Adams to see what he would name them.  They tell me that
since no ordinals are attached to the creation of animals and Adam in the
2nd account, this is not a contradiction.

Many of the answers that the fundies give me are pretty bad, but in this
case, I can not argue too much with them.  We have to assume too much to
call this a contradicton.  In this century, in our language, technical
people prefer to list things in created orders.  So, if some scientist
today sat down and wrote this, in English, your argument would be valid. 
If an English major sat down and wrote this, I would not be so certain. 
He/she may be trying to get a better effect by using a non-technical
writing style. 


: Accepting provisionally (I don't know the Hebrew) Weemba's contention that
: no contradiction might exist in the Hebrew, I am nevertheless utterly at a
: loss to see how it is possible to interpret the above as written (no moving
: verse 1:25 around, now!) such that no contradiction exists. Unless you totally
: abandon your brains of course.

I don't know the Hebrew either.  But, if you provisionally accept Weemba's
contention, the argument is already over.  If the text in the original 
language does not contain a contradiction, then the apparent contradiction
in the English text came from the translation.

: 
: Ah! Hmmm, yes, that's better.... I'll post the theory of Creation soon.
: 

This is something I will agree with you on.  Since much of Genesis is
very vaugely worded (I think we both can agree on that).  It is pure
folly to try to base a scientific, empirical theory on this book.

--
Dale Skiba