Creation/evolution3

[Drich]

That's not how the two accounts read. One is complete and the other seems partially complete, and they differ in numerous areas. They also describe a very different creator; in the first account, god is an ethereal being who speaks things into existence ("let there be" ... "and it was so"). He creates the plants, then the sun/moon, then the fish and flying creatures, then the land animals. Finally he creates man and woman at once and gives them stewardship over the entire planet and everything on it.

I'm putting a pin in this one.

The second account actually begins with "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." It does not pretend to be an ancillary account, but THE account of creation, as if the other doesn't exist. This version of the creator is more human: he "forms" man and "planted" a garden. Unlike the god of the first version, he works as a craftsman would. He creates man, then puts the man to work in the garden of Eden and limits him to the fruits of the garden (with two exceptions), then finally creates woman after that.

Ah, I see the problem. You think that the Chapter and verse denotations suggest a beginning and end in the Hebrew text.
In short it doesn't. The truth is there is no punctuation nor breaks in the orginal hebrew texts. Just one big long scroll that some dude in 1277 decided this was how he was going to divide the bible. Not as a way to begin and end complete thoughts or ides but as a way to reference the bible to make it easier to study and find passages. There is absolutly no authoritative call for these specific segergations of scripture.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_...rt_273.cfm

That means what you call the beginning of Chapter two is actually the end of chapter one. That is why I am ALWAYS going on about context.

Here read Chapter 1 with the first part of Chapter two attached with the verse denotations removed: God said, “I am giving you all the grain bearing plants and all the fruit trees. These trees make fruit with seeds in it. This grain and fruit will be your food. And I am giving all the green plants to the animals. These green plants will be their food. Every animal on earth, every bird in the air, and all the little things that crawl on the earth will eat that food.” And all these things happened. God looked at everything he had made. And he saw that everything was very good.
There was evening, and then there was morning. This was the sixth day.
So the earth, the sky, and everything in them were finished. God finished the work he was doing, so on the seventh day he rested from his work. God blessed the seventh day and made it a holy day. He made it special because on that day he rested from all the work he did while creating the world.

Now we have the 7 Days of Creation where as Genesis 1 ends on day 6. For these very reasons they have bibles published with out Chapter and verse numbers. As you can see It can read completely different.

It is also notable that in chapter 2 there is a sudden transition from referring to "the man" and suddenly calling him "Adam."

Because again Chapter 1 for the most part is an overview while Chapter 2 fill in the detail, as per Jewish custom.

The man is never formally introduced by name (and has no name in the first account), which makes it seem as if at least a portion of the second account is missing. Indeed, the second account seems a bit fragmented, and there are probably a few parts missing. Whether this is intentional or not, I don't know. But IMO they are clearly two different tellings of the tale.

They seem fragmented because you have not applied the information I provided in traditional Jewish story telling. If you had you would easily understand that what Chapter 1 is missing is filled out in Chapter 2, and what chapter 2 is missing is covered in Chapter 1.

Your arguement was orginally constructed by someone who looked at Genesis 1&2 and judge them on today's literary standards. They don't pass... But again your not reading something written today or even of this culture. If you take the literary norms they were written under and apply them 'your arguement' is no longer valid.

---

That's not how the two accounts read. One is complete and the other seems partially complete, and they differ in numerous areas. They also describe a very different creator; in the first account, god is an ethereal being who speaks things into existence ("let there be" ... "and it was so"). He creates the plants, then the sun/moon, then the fish and flying creatures, then the land animals. Finally he creates man and woman at once and gives them stewardship over the entire planet and everything on it.

The second account actually begins with "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." It does not pretend to be an ancillary account, but THE account of creation, as if the other doesn't exist. This version of the creator is more human: he "forms" man and "planted" a garden. Unlike the god of the first version, he works as a craftsman would. He creates man, then puts the man to work in the garden of Eden and limits him to the fruits of the garden (with two exceptions), then finally creates woman after that.

It is also notable that in chapter 2 there is a sudden transition from referring to "the man" and suddenly calling him "Adam." The man is never formally introduced by name (and has no name in the first account), which makes it seem as if at least a portion of the second account is missing. Indeed, the second account seems a bit fragmented, and there are probably a few parts missing. Whether this is intentional or not, I don't know. But IMO they are clearly two different tellings of the tale.

Bravo!

I know you new, so here a little tip.. No matter how convincing the atheist arguement 'seems' to be, be patient and wait to see how I respond. It's not always the case, but I have been known to pull a few rabbits out of my hat from time to time.