YOUR TYPICAL BIBLICAL DUMBFUCKERY: I'm perpetually amused by anyone who tries to read Genesis chronologically, given that there are two separate Creation accounts, and they blatantly disagree with one another.
I could explain this in detail but I'll just give you a hint and you can take it from there. The first account begins, of course, at Genesis 1:1 and ends at Genesis 2:3, while an inexplicable second account (perhaps God saying, "Hang on, let me rephrase that") starts up again at Genesis 2:4.
Feel free to read the two accounts yourself (perhaps here) and see if you can spot the chronological inconsistencies.
WELL, YOU KNEW THAT WAS COMING. And who but Jinx/Jason would show up to demonstrate his appalling theological ignorance by refusing to accept the well-known proposition of two different creation accounts in Genesis, even when I give him the exact fucking chapter and verse so he can see for himself.
I believe Jason's insipid comment proves that, when it comes to the two of us, only one of us has actually taken the time to read the Bible. And it's not him.
OH, YAWN. It's almost like there's no fun in watching Jinx/Jason prove what kind of theological ignoramus he is anymore. Regarding my claim of two separate creation accounts in Genesis, Jinx writes (in a stupefying demonstration of ill-informed ignorance):
"Well-known proposition!" Good one, CC! You're pretty funny when you're being dead serious.
No, it's actually not well-known and if you were to ask the average person on the street about it, they'd give you a richly deserved "what the fudge are you talking about" look.
Now, by "average person on the street," I'm assuming Jinx really means "average idiot in his immediate circle of friends," since one is free to Google on the words "two separate creation accounts Genesis" to get this -- over two million hits. Obviously, not all of those deal directly with the two creation stories but, just as obviously, it shows that the idea of two stories is not some incredibly obscure notion, and that, yes, Jinx really is an ignorant dimwit.
Perhaps this whole discussion is best summed up here:
Scholars categorize these two stories into two separate time frames. The first is known as the Priestly (P) account because it is associated with the priestly caste of ancient Israel, while the second is known as the Jahwist (J) account because the J writer always calls the Creator, Yahweh.
The P account is dated much earlier than the J account because it is mythological in nature. Scholars believe that it was based on the Enuma Alish, an ancient Babylonian myth. The P account also tends to try to "de-mythologize the cosmological myths" (Buchner, Frank. Ph.D. "Genesis 1-3") in the final analysis. The emphasis here is on the Sabbath (the seventh day when God rested) and also on the image of mankind as being in the image of God so that man is perceived as being superior to all other of God's creations.
On the other hand, the J account is less concerned with trying to historicalize the act of creation and more interested in explaining why mankind differs from both the LORD God and the LORD God's other creations. It shows how man and woman try to become like the LORD God by means of eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil and so are inferior to the LORD God, but also how they are separated from the LORD God's other creations because they marry, they are ashamed of their sexuality and nakedness, they must work hard for their food, and why women experience pain during childbirth.
Note that first sentence: "Scholars categorize ..." "Scholars," who have actually taken the time to study the text, as opposed to ignorant, wingnut fundamentalists like Jinx who get their theology from badly-drawn cartoon tracts. There's your difference.