Matt, the author of that essay is so devoid of any rational argument, he doesn't deserve the time of day.

To put it in perspective. Isaac Asimov appears in his bibliography, with his book "Isaac Asimov's guide to the bible." That right there would be a giant red flag not to take anything this guy says seriously. He's parroting fundy atheists, which is apparently the only time its ok to be a fundy.

Quote:

---

The second objection was a link to a website that claimed that there is no contradiction. Well, the only arguments presented were a theory that the second creation story was not referring to all plants and animals, but only to a few that were created after Man as a sort of late add-on. The bible does not mention that they were an add-on, to the only reason for that theory is that otherwise we had a contradiction.

---

You're missing the point. The bible doesn't have to imply that they were a late add on, since the word they use (erets), refers to small scale plots of land. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you, not the inerrentist, to prove that there were no plants on the entire earth. But the bible doesn't say that, does it? Since you've already established that you can't put words in the bible's mouth, your argument is out the window.

There is a word for earth, by the way, that they could have used and would have made more sense if that's what they meant.

So now the only reason you can claim certainty is that otherwise there is no contradiction and your theory begins to lose footing before we even hear what it is.

Quote:

---

owever, the first creation story clearly refers to all plants and animals, and the second one introduced a different creation order not only in tempus but also in causality.

---

Ok, so you admit it could make sense as long as they use a different tempus?

In that case, there is a consistent explanation in the timing of the writing. Number one, you're making an assumption. That these creatures were created due to the lack of a helpmeet. Let's look at the verse from my bible:

Quote:

---

And the Lord God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him." Out of the ground the Lord God [had] formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a halper comparable to him.

Blah, blah, blah Eve is created and becomes the perfect 'helpmeet.'

---

From the context of this passage, let's assume not that the animals were created to find a helpmeet, but that instead only eve was created as the helpmeet. She is the focus of this little ditty anyway, so why not?

If you reread it in that light, then it could just as well be said that God did not create the beasts at that time for a helpmeet, but that they were already created and in the context of finding a helpmeet (which is what the first sentence is establishing), they were brought before Adam to be named, and it is this naming process, not the creation process, that is part of the causal link.

So what makes more sense? They purposely threw in a completely contradictory account? Or they knew what they were doing, and you're just trying to find a contradiction? I know what makes more sense to me. I know that anyone studying the bible would have noticed a clear contradiction, which would have been rather hard to cover up. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

Quote:

---

In fact the contradiction in the two Genesis stories is even more obvious in the original Hebraic text (where the number of involved gods also differs).

---

Elohim is used to refer to 'lesser beings' than God. So I could just as well argue that elohim encompasses God and the angels, and to go along with that further, when God says "we" and "us", He's referring to Himself and the angels (or better yet the trinity)(I personally think it makes sense in the context of angels).

Of course, your assertive language ("You had to be a very fanatic believer not to see it.") is probably a ruse to hide the fact that your argument is based on assumptions, and none of what you offer as an argument is unequivocal.

Quote:

---

However the bible was not written for fanatic YECs that believe everything literally, but for educated, normal people with an open mind.

---

You would have to have a pretty open mind to believe in multiple gods, one of which claims to be the only true God. Actually I believe the name for that is 'stupid.'