Genesis 2 seems to me to be more of a "Quick summary" while Genesis 1 actually describes the process. Genesis 2 doesn't actually claim that man was made first, only that the animals were formed, which is listed after man was made.
That might be good enough, but based on context,its also probable that, while God created most of the animals in Genesis 1, he actually created the animals IN THE GARDEN, which were the ones Adam specifically named, in Genesis 2. So while every type existed throughout the world first, God created more to populate the garden in Genesis 2.
I'm not sure which of those two is correct, but I think either one solves the problem.
It is nice to see your skill at hoop jumping has improved. Anyhow, in the first chapter of Genesis man is quite clearly created after all the birds, trees, and whatnot. However, in the second account of creation (Gen 2:5-7):
"while as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted, for the LORD God had sent no rain upon the Earth and there was no man to till the soil, but a stream was welling up out of the earth and was watering all the surface of the ground- the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being."
Genesis 2 clearly established man came first and then all the plants and animals were made. This branches into two questions:
1. If we are to assume the Bible is literally correct, which account of creation tells us the right order of creation?
2. Why the focus and hoop-jumping to try and find an explanation where both are correct instead of looking at the original text (or as close as we can find to the original text) and seeing how they are two distinct styles of Hebrew, amalgamated from the separate texts?
Ugh, Leviticus, the single most
annoying book to have to try to interpret
So you are interpreting it, not merely reading it and knowing what it means automaticaly? If Leviticus has to be interpreted for a modern context why don't the other books have to be interpreted for a modern context?
In all seriousness I'm not really completely familiar with all of the Jewish culture and whatnot that went into this. The reality is that we are in the New Covenant and Leviticus was written for the Old Covenant. As such, as don't have to follow everything in it as literally stated.
How do we know what to follow and what not to follow? I don't believe Jesus left a revised addition detailing what rules we should and shouldn't follow.
2. The moral laws. These are things that are repeated in the New Testament or we don't have any indication would not still apply. The ban on homosexual sex and incest apply. These are still in full force today, although the legal penalties may be different or perhaps nonexistant.
I don't recall Jesus talking about polyester clothing or homosexuality, so why then the disconnect in how they are applied to modern society?
3. The legal laws. These are things regarding government, such as "If you do such and such you shall be put to death" or whatever. It was just a legal system, for Israel. There is nothing that says WE have to apply the same penalties in our respective countries. It does refute the idea, however, that all sins are exactly the same in the eyes of God.
Does Leviticus say "This applies only to Jews. Christians need not follow"?
Actually, the Jewish revelation is actually part of why we believe Jesus. Just look at Isaiah 53 and then about how he died.
Unfortunately, as I see it, two problems emerge.
1. That passage is written in the past tense. Unfortunately, my knowledge of Ancient Hebrew or Greek is non-existant so I cannot check to the source material, but it appears that a passage writing about a person in the past tense isn't really referring to a person who will come in the future. Does this change your opinion on it?
2. The major schools of Jewish theology don't believe Jesus was the Messiah. Are they incorrect in their assesment?
If for no other reason, Islam is wrong because of what it says about Jesus (And there are other reasons.) There are four different sources regarding Jesus getting crucified on a cross and rising again, yet Islam rejects that he did these things.
Four non-independent sources who had a large personal stake in the matter, and whose relation the Jesus or their firsthand presence is not concretely established.
They also say Muhammad was a greater prophet than Jesus, something Jesus clearly rejected the possibility of (He makes clear his own divinity) and yet Muslims still think Jesus is a prophet, it makes no sense.
Neither Moses nor Abraham were divine, but they are both considered prophets.
I noticed your primary argument for the validity to Christianity is pointing out how Islam differs from Christianity. Could I not simply state Christianity differs on its portrayal of Jesus from Islam, and therefore is incorrect? What about the Jewish version of him?
From what I understand of the teachings of Muhammad, most of them involve killing infidels and the like, and the earlier, gentler texts were actually abroggated by later ones.
Abrogation is a very complex issue in Islam and it differs wildly between the different sects and between different groups in the same sect. There is no 'official' position on abrogation is Islam.
