>>Pom's reply is nonresponsive; he doesn't mention anywhere "plant" or "plants."<<
Why should I mention plants, the passage at hand says there were NO plants when water came to be. That is all these passages are stating. That's my response, so me being "unresponsive" is clearly a misconception on your part. You just don't like a good logical answer to your supposed contradiction.
>>His fixation on water is perplexing, and his argument is not understandable.<<
Surley it is logical. Where did that water come from in the beginning that God was brooding over in Gen 1:2? Show me your explaination. It never says anywhere prior to the first "day" where the water came from. God surely brought water into existence. Then how and when? Or was water always in existence like God? No. The Bible makes clear WHERE WATER CAME FROM AND HOW IT CAME TO BE ON THE EARTH. My question was answered.
Gen 2:6 BUT streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground--
The "fixation" you claim is my explaination to you. This understanding is more than satisfactory for me. If you deny that these passages surely could be stating what I have shown, then say I am not satisfied with the answer because so and so...and make sure your reason is relative to the topic.
>>He should explain how his perception of when and how water was created somehow negates the plain language of Genesis; it CLEARLY states that "The land produced...plants...[on] the third day... [and] God created man..[on] the sixth day (Gen 1:12-13; 27).<<
Yes it does say the above and the above does absolutely NOTHING to further your point.
>>This was the opinion of the author who called the deity "God" thirty-five times in a row, never "LORD God." In contrast, the author who called the deity "LORD God" nine times in a row, beginning suddenly at the beginning of the second story of creation, never calling him "God," believed that<<
You are leaving the initial topic and going on to something else. Have you lost your ammunition? The above does not in any way prove the inaccuracy of my understanding that Genesis 2:4b and forward, detail some of what happened in the first chapter.
The above only shows that a change in the writers PERSON PERSPECTIVE may be indicated. It does not prove anything you are supposing in regard to your man was formed first contradiction.
I personally believe what you are revealing to be the writers full intention of showing the first half of the creation account was through one individuals perspective (35 times Elohim) and the second portion of the creation account is through another individuals perspective (9 times YHWH Elohim).
The chronoligical first chapter and some of the second chapter, I believe are through the perspective eyes of "evil", perhaps those bad eyes being Satan's perspective, while Elohim was creating the physical. The rest of the second chapter would be through the perspective eyes of "good", perhaps those good eyes being an angel who remained loyal during the heavenly rebellion.
>>“NO plant of the field had yet sprung up, for..there was no man to work the ground” (Gen 2:5)<<
I asked for you to show me after Gen 2:7 where God brings all other things into existence as YOU are teaching. You did NOT show me anything. You have shown me all the things that were NOT.
Joseph. Think and read:
Gen 2:7
7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
In order for man to be formed from the dust of the ground, THE GROUND HAD TO BE CREATED BEFORE MAN. In order for the dust of the ground to be present to form the man, the water had to have receded for the dust of the ground to be exposed.
>>The contradiction is clear; if Pom wishes to defeat this argument, he needs to explain CLEARLY why we should ignore the plain a simple meaning of the verses above, AND why he thinks it's just a coincidence that the writer suddenly switches after 35 "Gods" in a row at the beginning of what Pom thinks is a "summary" account of the creation, to nine "LORD Gods" in a row.<<
I thought we were talking man created first? One who changes arguments in the middle of a debate stream are the ones who have shown their loses and can no loger support their argument. So they bring in another topic that does NOTHING to support the first contention. Shame on you.
>>Explain how your "water," Pom allows us to ignore the plain reading of the verses, and then please explain why the switch in deity name is just coincidental.<<
My water is in the context of the point you questioned. Your number of times Elohim and YHWH Elohim are in the first two chapters of the Bible have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the CONTEXT of YOUR man formed first contradiction. NOTHING NOTHING.
Stick to the topic at hand. If you have no more defense, say so. Don't go onto to another topic entirley and say this also supports man being formed first BECAUSE IT DOES NOT. Otherwise, you have lost the debate.
Or perhaps you can explain to all reading this the relation to your "man formed first contradiction", and the number of times God and LORD God are mentioned in different passages of these first two chapters.
You are being illogical if you think it does.