BobRyan said:
Page 1 your first 2 responses to those who respond to your speculative starting post on this subject thread started with "SHOW that I am wrong" and "Prove that I am wrong" respectively -- and now you admit that you are not proving even your own argument?? Is this a form of what Dawkins calls the "flying spaghetti monster" proposal??
No, you seemed to imply that I was trying to prove the Documentary Hypothesis, which I wasn't. I was just explaining why I believe the perceived discrepancies of the OP exist. If you weren't saying that I was trying to prove the DH, then my mistake, but cybershark mentioned the DH and that's what I was referring to specifically to him when I asked him to prove me wrong about my DH views (which was a tangent, since this thread is not about proving/disproving the DH).
Btw, Richard Dawkins did not come up with the Spaghetti Monster parody. Get your facts straight.
Simply asserting your position "is if it is true" is neither "proof" nor a compelling form of debate you have to "show" that is true minus the "mabye... seems like" kinds of "proof".
That is the whole point you missed -- again.
Incoherent comments like this will be ignored.
You did not respond to the point at all - the argument above is not that you claimed to find NO Chornological sequence -- it is that you "claimed" to find TWO that were in your words "compatible chronologies".
Your giving a non-response as in the case above that completely evades all solutions to the problem pointed out - is not as compelling a response as you might have imagined at first.
Please read Genesis iiff and tell me it's just a tangle of disconnected events that follow no order. My point was that regardless if Genesis ii gives an actual sequence of time
frames (like the days in ch. i), it still narrates the events therein in an order...and in an order that contradicts the order in the first chapter.
In a "Chronological sequence" you have events timeboxed as we see with "evening and morning were the 5th day" in the case of creating fish and birds.
The sequence doesn't have to be laid out in specific time frames in order for a story to read chronologically (as in this happened first, then this happened second, etc.) The plain reading of the text shows that the events happened in order, and the text even has markers telling you when something happened before something else did, such as in Gen ii.5. Here it is explicitly stated that there was no greenery on the earth (
erets) and then it's narrated that Yahweh created a man, and then caused greenery to grow. That contradicts the sequence of events in the first chapter where plants are created first and
then man later.
In the Gen 2:5 through end story there is no "creation of sun or moon" timeboxed no creation of atmosphere timeboxed no timebox of anything at all - just "added details" for what was missing in the "Chronological sequence" of the "account" we find in Gen 1:2 through 2:4.
The 'added details' hypothesis does not explain the conflict in chronology (like how Adam could have named all the animals in one day before Eve arrived on the scene), nor the sudden shift in perspective, nor the omissions, nor evidence that the 'books of geneaologies' (beginning with Gen ii.4) formed a source for the author(s)/redactor(s) of the book as a whole. The very way the story opens in Gen ii.4 precludes that it originally was just 'adding details' to a previously formed narrative. You're reading that into the text because of your presupposition that the two accounts are complementary. Gen ii does have an order of events, even if they are not 'timeboxed' specifically.
In your Title and OP you ask for "help" -- this then is the "help" you needed which is that you "missed the obvious detail" that the genesis account does not have TWO chronological sequences -- much less TWO that COULD conflict as you speculate.
You are a very confused person...this isn't my thread and I've asked for no 'help'.
Gen 2 contains "events" but does not place them in time -- and the "details" given in Chapter when placed in the "obvious" timebox framework of Chapter 1 -- provide more information than you had with just the Gen 1-2:4 "Chronological sequence" -- obviously.
No, obviously ch. ii narrates events in its own order. Your illogical assumption is that specific time frames (e.g. days) need to be mentioned before we can conclude the story follows a given order. The plain reading of the text shows that the events occur in order--an order that contradicts the first chapter and in which there is no indication of a purpose to 'add details'.
First You claim that a consistent reading of chapters 1 and 2 placing the story of 2:5-end into the precise chronology and sequence of Chapter 1 "Makes little sense" AS IF you had shown this to be true -- when once again you merely assume your point and move past it.
No, I have shown that Gen ii reads in order and that that order contradicts the first order. You've been denying it. I'd advise you to actually read it. You're assuming it's an unorderly repetition (a repetition with omissions?) whilst at the same time 'adding details' to complement the first chapter.
HOW in the world do you expect to convince the unbiased objective reader with such handwaiviing??
Is the rant at the end supposed to "seal the deal" for them??? To prove an argument you need something besides "sound and fury" you need "substantive" and compelling points of argument.
/rant
Thanks,
~Eric
