> Anthony R. Woodcock wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, Michael Fisher wrote:
> >
> > > Anthony R. Woodcock wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > If you are accepting Genesis as literally true, this raises a question.
> > >
> > > In Genesis 2:5-23, the story is told as Adam being created first.
> > Then plants.
> > > Then God decides that Adam might need a help mate (or "help meet" in
> > the KJV) , so
> > > he makes all the beasts of land and air,
> >
> > (although he skips fishes in this account).
> >
> > The above is incorrect, look at verse 20. Give me a break.
>
> MWF 3/26
> Tony, it would behoove you to open your Bible and LOOK at where I'm quoting
> from. Genesis 2:20 reads "And the man gave names to all the cattle . . ."
>
> No fish in Chapter 2 Tony. Your problem, not mine.
Very easy, sorry for the misquote, I quoted 1:20.
How many fish can you bring to me(species) before some of them start dying
off? Kind of defeats the point of naming them. What was the purpose of
the passage? It was to find someone suitable to be Adam's helper. Maybe
Adam kind of realized after a while that the animal thing wasn't going to
work.
>
> Try to solve it.
>
> >
> > >
> > > {{As an aside, although God must have already made language, so he and
> > Adam could
> > > talk and so God could give Adam commands such as "Of every tree of the
> > Garden thou
> > > mayest freely eat" etc., he hadn't made any nouns for all the beasts,
> > so Adam was
> > > allowed to name them all, as he looked at each to see if it would be a
> > good
> > > helpmate/help meet. Also, did Adam name all of the over 1 million
> > species of critters we
> >
> > Do you question this. Can you count to a million in only ONE year? Give
> > me another break.
>
> MWF
> It's not a problem of _counting_ . It's a problem of coming up with a bunch
> of NEW NAMES !!!! Also known as nouns.
>
Try a test, then get back to me with your substantial proof that it is not
possible. Since you do not live as long as Adam did, I assume you will
have to take this into account. In other words, your angle is not very
good.
> How does a language acquire new words Tony? How is a new animal
named? I
> assure you it doesn't happen by someone sitting on their butt watching
menagerie.
>
> Was there Hebrew names for Koala's and Kangaroo's and Moose and
such--that
> just got forgotten?
>
> Semi-pretty story, linguistic nonsense---and you haven't touched the
> linguistic issue.
>
> And anyway, since God in this scenario INVENTED language, why
didn't he
> think of the names of everything in creation at the same time? Did his
omnipotence
> FORGET or OVERLOOK something?
Look at my other E-mail messages. I already answered this. Your angle
doesn't hold water.
>
> >
> > > know exist, or just the ones which were going to be present in
> > Palestine after the
> > > fall?}}
> >
> > Did it state in the text that there are less after the fall?
>
>
> MWF
> Tony still attempting to dodge the linguistic bullet.
>
> Did or did not Adam name ALL the animals, or just the animals existing in
> Palestine in historical times--you know, the names that still exist in Hebrew.
Why does it matter.
I will show substantial proof that makes your arguement nill.
God created the universe.
Therefore I conclude that IF this story is literal(I did not say it was
completely), then God can do whatever He likes.
IF it is not literal, then you are pulling at hairs that are not real.
>
> Or did he name every little species of bug that now lives only in the Amazon
> rain forest as well as every marsupial in Australia?
>
> Please try to ANSWER a question Tony.
>
Now, I have a question for you, is a bug livestock, bird, or a beast of
the field, OR maybe a fish?
>
> >
> > >
> > > None of the beasts turn out to be suitable, so God then decides to
> > make woman.
> > > Since Genesis 2:25 specifically makes the point that although they
> > looked upon one
> > > another, they felt no shame, and no further miracles are recorded to
> > modify either's
> > > body, the inference is that they were both physically "normal" as created.
>
>
> > Not very smart. For one if you look at the Greek and Hebrew you will see
> > that the tree of knowledge of good(pleasant, better, good, prosperous) and
> > evil(evil, wrong, not proserous) is really not totally meant for what is
> > right and wrong, but for what is prudent and prosperous too. Like not
> > being naked, for God even stated it was pleasant in His sight. They had a
> > lack of knowledge, in the case of being naked.
>
> MWF
> Um, Tony, the point is, for this particular issue, that Adam was
apparently
> competently formed. Other issues are discussed elsewhere. Try staying
on topic.
>
>
Didn't you get my point?
> Yoel, do you have any input on the Hebrew?
>
> >
> > >
> > > Which creates a problem. All the beasts were made at once,
> > presumably although
> > > not explicitly stated in chap. 2, male and female and hence self
> > reproducing. But if
> > > in verse 25 Adam is already physically normal, then way back in verse
> > seven he must
> > > have already had normal genitalia, which means normal testes producing
> > sperm through
> > > normal mitosis.
> > >
> > > But if Adam had normal testes producing normal gametes, then he had a normal
> > > genome--which means his DNA, containing both X and Y sex chromosomes,
> > >
> > > ***already contained all the genetic information for a female***
> > >
> > > Indeed, the presence of testes and the production of sperm makes no sense
> > > except if there already are females, or if they're at least already part of the plan.
> > >
> >
> > Or that you have misunderstood what is going on like a lot of people do.
>
> MWF
> Well then, your job is to explain it all so that we quit
misunderstanding
> "it".
>
> > You have failed in noticing that there is NOT one mention that God didn't
> > know who was going to help Adam.
>
> MWF
> Oh no?
>
> GENESIS 2:18-19 "Then the Lord God said, "IT IS NOT GOOD FOR THE MAN TO BE
> ALONE; I WILL MAKE HIM A HELPER SUITABLE FOR HIM." ___AND___ OUT OF THE GROUND THE
> LORD GOD FORMED EVERY BEAST OF THE FIELD AND EVERY BIRD OF THE SKY, AND BROUGHT THEM
> TO THE MAN . . . BUT FOR ADAM THERE WAS NOT FOUND A HELPER SUITABLE FOR HIM."
>
The darkness has blinded your eyes. I can read it and it makes TOTAL
sense.
Does God have to show that He knows everything just because He does? Why
don't you look at 1 Corinthians 13, which states that is not the case.
> WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THE SEARCH FOR THE HELPER THEN???
>
> ANSWER THE FRIGGING QUESTION!!!!
>
I did, so Adam can make the choice(We are made in GOD'S image(He makes
choices)).
> Note the conjunctions the translators used for the English:
>
> "AND"
>
> AND: 1--used as a function word to indicate CONNECTION or ADDITION esp. of
> items WITHIN THE SAME CLASS OR TYPE; used to JOIN SENTENCE ELEMENTS of the SAME
> GRAMMATICAL RANK OR FUNCTION.
>
> So the "ands" link all the phrases into one long thesis.
>
> Then a "but"
>
> BUT: 2(a)-- on the contrary: on the other hand: 'notwithstanding'--- USED TO
> CONNECT COORDINATE ELEMENTS <he was called ~ but he did not answer> <not peace ~ a
> sword>.
>
>
> So the English grammatical analysis links the failure to find a helpmate to
> the making of the animals to God's concern for Adam NEEDING a helpmate.
>
> NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION.
>
> > I think God just brought animals and
> > stuff before him to let him choose what will be the best helper.
>
> MWF
> It is quit immaterial WHAT you "think" if you don't show WHY that
> interpretation of THE TEXT is _correct_.
>
> I'm still waiting.
>
> > Now that
> > would correlate with God's character since He made us in His image(we are
> > given an option to make choices). Therefore it makes the scriptures even
> > more adherent to God's character, which you fail to understand. Give me a
> > break.(Man I need a lot of breaks!)
>
> MWF
> What you need are some more functioning brain cells.
>
Ha Ha
> Please show how, BASED ON THE TEXT OF GENESIS CHAPTER 2, you get to your
> "understanding".
>
> >
> > > But then in 18-19 God makes all the beasts in an attempt to get Adam a
> > > helpmate.
> > >
> > > Even though all the information on what Adam really needed was already
> > > contained in his own body and its genes.
> > >
> > > Which God had made.
> > >
> > > So why the animal show? Adams helpmate, woman, was already implicit and
> > > completely coded in the DNA in Adams own cells. Even if God decided that more different
> > > genes were needed so he didn't want to just "clone" a female from Adams own
> > > genes, he certainly didn't need to start from scratch and solve the problem all over
> > > again.
> > >
> > > So it would seem that the passage simply, upon analysis, cannot be both
> > > literally true and accurate at the same time. If it is accurate, then it makes little
> > > sense--God creates the extraordinarily complex molecular biology of plants and Adam,
> > > then forgets everything about it, then re-remembers the molecular biology again so he
> > > can create the beasts but still doesn't remember a thing about Adam.
> > >
>
> > Giv me a break, give me something that is challenging, if you have any.
>
> MWF
> Why?
>
> YOU NEVER HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION.
>
> GENESIS 2:18-19 "Then the Lord God said, "IT IS NOT GOOD FOR THE MAN TO BE
> ALONE; I WILL MAKE HIM A HELPER SUITABLE FOR HIM." ___AND___ OUT OF THE GRUND THE
> LORD GOD FORMED EVERY BEAST OF THE FIELD AND EVERY BIRD OF THE SKY, AND BROUGHT THEM
> TO THE MAN . . . BUT FOR ADAM THERE WAS NOT FOUND A HELPER SUITABLE FOR HIM."
>
Look above.
> Now once more.
>
> If Adam was biologically normal, then he already had X chromosomes, which
> means he already had the genetic code for a woman.
>
> SO WHAT'S THE POINT OF THE ACTION IN GENESIS 2:18-19?????????????????
>
> !!!!PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
I did. It is not enough for God to know everything and blurt it out.
God is Love. 1 John 4
Love is patient, kind, not boastful.
If I know everything and have not love I am nothing. 1 Cor. 13
Slow to speak, quick to listen, slow to wrath. 1 Peter 2(I think)
I gave you God's characteristics, I have answered your question, I love
you.
Your conception of God is not right.
> TTFN
>
> --
> Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret., law student
>
> http://home.aol.com/Mfish6994
>
> * * *
>
> He that would make his own liberty secure,
> must guard even his enemy from oppression;
> for if he violates this duty,
> he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
>
> Thomas Paine
>
>
Hasta La Vista..