The Instigator
Fruitytree
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
JonMilne
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
JonMilne
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,615 times Debate No: 33904
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

Fruitytree

Pro

Welcome!

I have the burden to prove two points:

1-that Genesis 2 is nothing but the continuation of the account of the creation mentioned in Genesis 1, and therefore it is not a new account of the same events.

2-That Genesis 2 does not contradict Genesis 1 if we understand both correctly.

CON will have to prove Genesis 2 is a whole new account of the creation and therefore Genesis2 contradicts Genesis1

I will paste here the full verses of Genesis 1 and 2 that we will be using (KJV) from : http://www.biblegateway.com... it is easier to refer to them:



Genesis 1

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
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.
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.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.



Genesis 2

2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
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.
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.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed

First round is for acceptance, then we can start.

JonMilne

Con

Challenge accepted.
Debate Round No. 1
Fruitytree

Pro

Thank you, Con for accepting.





1- Showing that Genesis 2 is the
continuation of Genesis 1 , not a new account of the same events

Genesis 2 starts this way :

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the
host of them.

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work
which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work
which he had made.


-The first word : 'thus', is a
clear indication that Genesis 2 is not independent of Genesis 1.

-The mention of the seventh day in Genesis 2 after the account of
the previous 6 days in Genesis 1 is another indication that Genesis 2
is nothing but a continuation.


-The work god had made is nothing but the creation that took place the 6
previous days. mentioend in Genesis 1.


CONCLUSION 1: Those who pretend that Genesis 2 is independent
of Genesis one and is recounting the story of creation, are presumptuous that
speak out of ignorance and out of context.



2-Genesis 2 does not contradict Genesis 1 in anyway:


- Creation: in Genesis 1 refers to creation of the seeds for the plants
and Genes or kinds (or whatever is specific to each creature) for
the rest of living creatures that are not yet living. In Genesis 2 it refers to
shaping coming into life, growing according to what type of creation it
is. So that is one more step in creation.


-Waters: Genesis 1 describes the separation between the
waters of heavens and waters of earth first, then the appearance of dry
land in the middle of waters, and in Genesis 2 the first rain, when the
Plant seeds were created but not yet alive.


-Man: in Genesis 1 is created as a kind but not yet living, in
Genesis 2 is shaped and come to existence.


-Eden : not located on earth but in heavens (paradise) and
contains the tree that doesn't exist on earth and its water is the source of
earths water.


CONCLUSION 2 : There are no contradictions between Genesis 1
and 2 if one is enough good at interpreting them honestly.

I ,now, expect CON to make his arguments to support his position : that Genesis 2 is a new account of the creation that was already told in Genesis 1 !! then rebuttals will be from round 3.
JonMilne

Con

I thank Pro for initiating this debate.

Objective 1 - Showing that within Genesis 2, an all new account of creation is written

Pro appeals to Genesis 2:1-2 to try and prove his point. Conveniently, he doesn't take any note of Genesis 2:4. Why don't we look at what that, and indeed Genesis 2:5-7, have to say?

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.


It is quite clear here that while an argument could be made that Genesis 2:1-3 forms a continuation of Genesis 1, it's quite clear from this very small segment I have quoted from Genesis 2, that from Genesis 2:4 onwards to Genesis 2:25 a new creation story is established in which the order of events depicted are completely different to the events of Genesis 1, as I will demonstrate in the next section. Thus, Genesis 2:4 onwards cannot be considered a continuation of Genesis 1.

Objective 2 - Establish that contradictions do in fact exist within the two Genesis accounts of creation

Now I will clarify here that while I will focus on mainly on how Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other, I will also point out that there are numerous other contradictions within the first two chapters that go on to contradict OTHER passages in the Bible, case in point the fact that while Genesis 2:2-3 as highlighted above in Pro's intro claims that God rests on the Sabbath, John 5:16-17 claims that God and Jesus always work on the Sabbath:

"5:16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work."

But I digress. My main job in this section is to show the contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2, so let's begin:

Humans And Other Animals - In Genesis 1:25-27, God creates humans after the other animals, as well as notably creating man and woman at the same time in Genesis 1:27:

"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. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Yet in Genesis 2:18-22, we find the opposite: man has been created before any other animal, at which point they then get created after him, and then out of Adam's rib Eve the first woman gets created:

"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 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. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."

Time It Took To Create Heavens And Earth - Genesis 1:3 - 1:31 claim that it took 6 days, with God resting on the seventh day in Genesis 2:1-3. However, Genesis 2:4 says quite the opposite:

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens."

As you can see, it's yet another contradiction, for while Genesis 1 claims it took six days, Genesis 2:4 says it took one day.

Plants - In the quote from Genesis 2:4-9 I highlighted in my Objective 1 section, plants are clearly created AFTER humans, but according to Genesis 1:11-13, the plants came first:

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so .... And the evening and the morning were the third day."

And they were followed by humans in Genesis 1:27-31:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them .... And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

Therefore, this forms yet another contradiction.

Fowls, and other animals - This relates to from what they were created from. Genesis 1:20-21 says that they were created from the water:

"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

Genesis 2:19, however, says the following:

"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."

Yeah, the ground. Clock up yet another contradiction between the two Genesis chapters.

Adam and trees - In Genesis 1:29, no tree appears to be off-limits to mankind:

"Behold, I have given your every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree ... to you it shall be for meat."

However, in Genesis 2:17, suddenly Adam isn't allowed to eat from every tree:

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it."

So now there's a restriction where there wasn't before. Yet again, a contradiction.

Water - Genesis 1:6-8 has the earth completely covered in water, leading to God commanding the waters to separate so that lands and sea are established. Pro claims that the contradiction with Genesis 2:5-6, where the earth is completely dry, is purely just some sort of weird water connection between heaven and earth first, and then trying to claim that plants actually didn't get created until Genesis 2, even though we have quite clearly established they were apparently created in Genesis 1, and nothing in Genesis 1 supports Pro's assertion that it was just seeds that were created.

Eden - Pro's argument is fundamentally silly. Firstly, man is quite clearly established to have been created and put on Earth, and there is no logical reason why God, after spending that time creating Earth, wouldn't then put Eden in it. Furthermore, there's the fact that at the end of Adam and Eve's stay in Eden during Genesis 3, God goes on to curse the ground they stand on as well as causing thorns and thistles to grow, and, critically, there is this line from Genesis 3:24:

"So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

In other words, God created armed guards at the gates to ensure that neither Adam nor Eve nor any of their descendants would be able to enter the Garden of Eden again. Since Adam and Eve were Earth-dwellers and would have no access to heaven, it's illogical then for Eden to have such security guarding it if not located on Earth.

Back to you, Con.
Debate Round No. 2
Fruitytree

Pro


Thank you for your prompt arguments Con.

-My opponents still insists that Genesis 2 contains a new account of the events
by mentioning those verse that don't show in any way that the author is
recounting the same story again I will paste the verses and the interpretation
of each verse after it :

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were
created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

(This is the true account ( the one mentioned in Genesis 1) of the
creation of the heavens and earth, when the lord made them).

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of
the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the
earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

(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.)

6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the
ground.

(But God caused it to rain on the whole face of the land)

7
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

(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.))

8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man
whom he had formed.

(This one is clear Eden is a Garden that already exists, nothing says it's on earth.)

9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant
to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the
garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.


(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).



-This new garden that is on the east of the garden of Eden, is not
said to be located on earth, so one cannot make assumptions like this, and if
we go to genesis 3, at the end of the chapter we get a hint that the Garden of
eden is not on earth:



23
Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he

was taken.

-The ground from where Adam was taken is the land of planet earth, there he
was sent forth. so Eden is not the land where he was taken from ( to be shaped
in the first place) and cannot be on earth.

-But the point is that the above verses from Genesis 2 are not a new account of
the creation of the heavens and the earth, they even contain a verse that
closes the account of the creation, that goes along Genesis 1 to the first
part of Genesis 2, of the heavens and the earth which is verse 4.

-And right after verse 4 God starts to speak about the
beginning of man life, so then the heavens and earth already exist
and are completed.


Now I refute the arguments for contradictions:


CON: " Now I will clarify here that while I will focus on mainly on
how Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other, I will also point out that there are
numerous other contradictions within the first two chapters that go on to contradict
OTHER passages in the Bible, case in point the fact that while Genesis 2:2-3 as
highlighted above in Pro's intro claims that God rests on the Sabbath, John
5:16-17 claims that God and Jesus always work on the Sabbath:"

-I say this is disrespectful of our debate, our debate has boundaries, and the
new testament does not interest the topic of our debate, so I'm not sure what
is the point of this argument ?!



CON: " Humans And Other Animals - In Genesis 1:25-27, God
creates humans after the other animals, as well as notably creating man and
woman at the same time in Genesis 1:27"

-And I say that God created fauna and flora in 2 steps , he created their
seeds and kinds first (which he mentioned in Genesis 1) then he gave them
life ( which he mentioned in Genesis 2 ) , and there is no reason to be
confused.



CON " Time It Took To Create Heavens And Earth - Genesis 1:3 -
1:31 claim that it took 6 days, with God resting on the seventh day in Genesis
2:1-3. However, Genesis 2:4 says quite the opposite"

-This misunderstanding is due to the ignorance from my opponent of the
Hebrew language. When God says "in the day that the LORD God made
the earth and the heavens" this is equivalent to him saying "when
God made the earth and the heavens" and doesn't mean He made them in
one day. Different languages have different ways to say
things.



CON "Plants - In the quote from Genesis 2:4-9 I highlighted in my
Objective 1 section, plants are clearly created AFTER humans, but according to
Genesis 1:11-13, the plants came first:"

-The first verses , Genesis 1 accounts the creation of the seeds
of the Flora and Kinds of the Fauna before they are alive,However, Genesis
2 When God formed man and gave him life , he placed him in a new Garden ,
nothing says it is on earth, but the place is In the Gardens of the heaven, and
I've shown above.



CON: " Fowls, and other animals - This relates to from what
they were created from. Genesis 1:20-21 says that they were created from the
water. Genesis 2:19, however, says the following. Yeah, the ground. Clock up
yet another contradiction between the two Genesis chapters."

-There is no contradiction Here, every living is made of water , and the fauna
is made from the ground, so we have two ingredients at least for
the Fauna and one at least for the flora ! where is the problem?!



CON: "
dam and trees - In Genesis 1:29, no tree appears to be

off-limits to mankind. However, in Genesis 2:17, suddenly Adam isn't
allowed to eat from every tree."

-That's a good point, God made one tree forbidden to man in the new Garden,
next to the Garden of Eden, but all the trees on earth are allowed to man,
that's another proof Eden is not on earth actually. so as God did
not place Adam directly on earth, in order to test his obedience, then when
Adam disobeyed, God sent him back to Earth where all the trees are allowed
, but there is no tree of life, and this just mean he no longer is eternal.



CON: "Water - Genesis 1:6-8 has the earth completely covered
in water, leading to God commanding the waters to separate so that lands and
sea are established. Pro claims that the contradiction with Genesis 2:5-6,
where the earth is completely dry, is purely just some sort of weird water
connection between heaven and earth first, and then trying to claim that plants
actually didn't get created until Genesis 2, even though we have quite clearly
established they were apparently created in Genesis 1, and nothing in Genesis 1
supports Pro's assertion that it was just seeds that were created."


-The lack of details in Genesis 1 should not let you assume more than
you read. when in Genesis 1 Waters are first kept on earth and
separated from waters of the heavens ' which shows that the origin of waters on
earth ore from waters of heavens. then God placed the heavens between them so
they are no longer connected.

Then a second step and still In Genesis 1 God caused the dry Land to appear , so
there was the land and the sea , and the creation is not of 24 hours kind
of days but each day mentioned in Genesis 1 is equivalent to 1000 years that we
know . so by the end of the creation thousands of years have passed and
the land with its seeds did not get any rain! until God caused it to rain
after the end of the creation as he mentioned in Genesis 2:6.


Finally CON argues about the Garden of Eden and insists that it
logically should be on earth because when God cursed the eastern Garden
He made it impossible to reach the tree of life for anyone. But this doesn't
mean that Eden is on earth, in fact, as God sent Adam Back to were he belonged,
which is earth GEN 3: 23, had enough significance that Eden and the
eastern Garden are not on earth but in Heaven.



With this I made it enough clear that what my opponent calls contradictions is
nothing but misunderstanding the wholly scripture original
meaning.




JonMilne

Con

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...
Debate Round No. 3
Fruitytree

Pro

1- No repetitions in Genesis !

Genesis one of the five books of the tanakh, it contains
an account from the creation of the universe to the days of Moses – peace be
upon him- and has no repetition of stories, if a story is told in then there
need to be a mention of it later, than there is a furtive mention without a
complete recount, and this is true for all Genesis so why would the creation
account be recounted right after is was counted ?!!

2- One original author!

When some theologians claim Genesis had more than one
author, this doesn’t necessarily mean there are contradictions within Genesis,
and it is established traditionally that the original author of Genesis is
Moses, who wrote the scripture himself, and gave it to the twelve tribes of
Israel . the modern

http://en.wikipedia.org...;

3- Translations of the bible are not meant to be
substitutes to the original scriptures in Hebrew.

In fact, the scriptures are revealed , but the translations
are not, therefore they cannot, in anyway, take the place of the original
scripture as revealed, especially that the translators often translated
critical verses according to one interpretation, when the original language can
endorse more than one interpretation!

4- Unexplained obsession?!

My opponent is repeating again his overly twisted
interpretation of the verses of Genesis 1-2, and wants Genesis 2/4-9 to be a
new account of the creation by force, He isn’t even able to recognise that
there is no way that any author or authors that would recount the same story in
a totally different way and goal, right after finishing the story ?! Moreover,
just because there is the mention of something that was talked about before,
doesn’t make it a new account of the same thing, but rather some precision
added or eventually the continuation of the story.

5- Genesis 2: 4

Is not an introduction, but a closing verse to the
account of creation of the universe.

6- Plants, Animals , Man

Nothing in Genesis 1 says that those were fully created,
there is detail on what diverse things were created, but it never says : they
were then existing and alive.

But my opponent and his twisted assumptions make him
read what is not written!

7- Eden

My opponent insist that the Garden of
Eden is on earth , and he defends it by saying that whence God sent Adam forth
from the garden, he caused Cherubims armed with a flaming sword to guard it.
But 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.

Eden is in Heaven, it is not the ground
from where Adam was made, and he was made from the ground of earth.

In conclusion, My opponent didn’t make any strong
argument except twisted assumptions to validate his claims, and his ignorance
of the original language make his understanding even weaker.

JonMilne

Con

Well, it's been a fun debate. 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...
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by medic0506 3 years ago
medic0506
RFD Revision to explain the source point:

JM's source 1 was a source that is not made up of scholars, or even theists. There is no reason at all to give the site any credibility for it's interpretations of the Bible. That was the only source that he used that, if credible, had anything to do with argumentation itself.

Source 2 was just a link to the forum thread. Source 3 was just a link to show where he got a definition for "herb". Neither of those sources are even relevant as they had no bearing on anything being contested. It seems rather obvious that he was just "padding" sources to try and gain the source point, whereas simply reading the Bible is the best, and only source one needs to decide this issue.

The one source that he could have made relevant to the debate was a poor choice on his part. He could have found a more credible, scholarly source, but chose to go with whatever shows his point, regardless of the credibility of those interpreting on that site.

The other two were just "padding", which I think is poor sportsmanship, bordering loss of conduct points.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Someone please message me if the vote I'm countering gets improved (better RFD, or sources dropped from it).
Posted by Fruitytree 3 years ago
Fruitytree
I thought you only stand with devils ?!
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Pro, in this situation, I would recommend (at least) sharing the BOP, rather than accepting it solely on yourself. The BOP should really be to show that there is a clear contradiction. Innocent until proven guilty.
Posted by Jzyehoshua 3 years ago
Jzyehoshua
I disagreed with the argument here completely. Personally I think it should be argued from the standpoint of the Wiseman Hypothesis or Tablet Theory, that Genesis 1 and 2 are separate accounts, one by God of creation, and one by Adam of his creation in the Garden of Eden and later life.

http://www.trueorigin.org...

As such, Genesis 2 does not mention the creation of animals a second time, but God's creation of animals already previously created in the Garden of Eden specifically to bring to Adam for purposes of seeing what they will be named. It would make no sense for Genesis to have two obviously differing accounts like that. The word translated generation demarcates the start of a new tablet account all throughout the book of Genesis showing 2:4 is the start of a new account.
Posted by Fruitytree 3 years ago
Fruitytree
Thank you for the debate Jonmilne, I'll let it rest some week or two, then if there is not enough voters I'll post some topic, or you can do it.
Posted by JonMilne 4 years ago
JonMilne
Sure
Posted by Fruitytree 4 years ago
Fruitytree
John I think we should post a topic about it by the end of the debate to have more people vote, what do you think ?
Posted by Fruitytree 4 years ago
Fruitytree
Definitions for what ?!
Posted by JonMilne 4 years ago
JonMilne
I'm rejecting this for now because I'm pretty sure I told you to provide some coherent definitions. Do that, and then I'll accept.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
FruitytreeJonMilneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Argument (con): Con successfully deflected BoP, and made a good case. Plus the alien hypothesis from pro (Eden wasn't on earth, but still needed to be guarded against primitive man exiled to earth, because God's an angry...) really made me cringe. Conduct (pro; I admit when favoring one side in arguments, I more easily grade other areas against them): Con tried to distract pro's case by calling out other areas of the bible, and was called on it. Pro tried to bring forum conversations into the debate, which is a little petty. Sources (tied): These actually favor con, but not by enough for the point. Both used the bible. Both used wiki (pro started that bad trend, so I understand replying with the same site). Debate.org I discount (see above). Which leaves con with two more sources, both of which I found interesting, but two sources more than pro is not enough to claim the point.
Vote Placed by medic0506 3 years ago
medic0506
FruitytreeJonMilneTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments for revised RFD. Pro comes out on top with arguments and sources, since the Bible is obviously the best source for this discussion. Pro correctly argues that, seeing contradictions between 1 and 2 results from improper understanding. Genesis 2 is a more detailed discussion of day 6, not a separate creation account. Pro also brought up the obvious question, if it were a separate account that is contradictory, why would it follow immediately after the original. That question alone should throw up a red flag for skeptics that maybe their interpretation is wrong. Though I don't agree with the entirety of Pro's argument, he was able to uphold the resolution against Con, showing that it's Con's misinterpretation that is causing the alledged contradiction.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
FruitytreeJonMilneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had to do some twisting in an attempt to reconcile the obvious contradictions, and gave no warrant for the use of those twists. Contrariwise, Con showed that the plain text has contradictions in it, and that it's only through unjustified interpretation that a reconciliation is possible. In the end, ANY self-contradicting text can be made to be non-contradicting, if we're allowed to impart anything we want to try to get it to reconcile. It's the old "depends on what the definition of is, is" argument. Arguments to Con, sources to Con (though only narrowly. Con pointed out how one of Pro's sources cited Con's points). Conduct was equal, they both dug at each other a bit. S&G was equal enough for government work.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 3 years ago
larztheloser
FruitytreeJonMilneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had BOP. I felt that pro gave a decent interpretation of both passages which he framed in a strange way to make it non-contradictory. Con also gave an equally decent interpretation of both passages which was contradictory. The crux of this debate was in which debater's interpretation was more convincing (most other arguments ended up being mostly moot). Con, quite rightly, went on the attack very early, pointing out all kinds of assumptions that pro was making which did sound pretty bad. Pro's attempts to defend this were unfortunately quite poorly structured and occasionally inconsistent, giving an impression that pro was justifying the passages to himself (finding a way they do not contradict) rather than taking them for what they are. Pro should have run an argument for why a non-contradictory interpretation should be preferred as the correct one. Without that, I had no reason to believe pro met BOP and award con a 3:1 win. Msg me if u have questions.