Errors, Contradictions and Questions concerning the Old Testament

[Sandy]

Old Shepherd said to me

What the h*ll kind of response is that? You made a point of condemning the N.T. and Christians because they are all supposedly pagan but all you can say about the pagan similarities in the O.T. is, “such things are disturbing.” When you were up there on your high horse attacking the N.T. and Christianity, why were you ignoring the O.T.?

So in response I have started this thread.

I would like to begin at the beginning of the Old Testament and discuss the major differences in the creation accounts of Genesis chapters one and two.

Chapter 1
24-26) The animals of the earth and creeping things and birds and fish are created
27) and then mankind (both male and female).

Chapter 2
7) The man only is formed
18-19) then the animals of the field are formed and birds.

Note: Chapter one the animals of the earth and creeping things along with birds and fish are created. In chapter two the animals of the field are formed and the birds. No fish or creeping things. Chapter one both male and female are created but in two only the man is formed.

Chapter 1
28) Mankind (male and female) is told to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth,

Chapter 2
8) The man (no female) is placed in a garden in Eden to till it and guard it.

Note: In chapter one we have both male and female which are told to be fruitfull and fill the earth. In two we have only the man and he is placed in the garden of Eden to till it and guard it.

Chapter 1
28 Mankind is told to rule over the fish, birds and over all living things creeping on the earth.

Chapter 2
18 It says because the man was alone the living things of the field and the birds were formed to be a mate or counterpart for him.
20) it says the animals and birds were not found to be a suitable mate or counterpart for the man.
21-22) so a part of the man was removed and built into a woman.

Note: Chapter one mankind is told to rule over the animals etc. In two the animals and birds are formed to be a mate or counter part to the man. That is a big difference. And to top it off the animals and birds in chapter two were formed to be the mans mate and the woman was built only after it was found that the animals and birds were not suitable.

Chapter 1
29) Mankind is given all grass bearing seed which is on the surface of the earth and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree bearing seed for food.

Chapter 2
16-17) YHUH commands the man that he may freely eat of every tree in the garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.

Note: In chapter one mankind is free to move over the surface of the earth and eat all seed bearing grass and from every seed bearing tree which produces fruit, but in chapter two the man is confined to the garden in Eden which he is to guard, and may only eat freely of all the trees in the garden with the exception of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.

There are some major differences.

[OldShepherd]

Sandy,

As with the N.T. thread I am not interested in responding to a long laundry list of supposed errors and contradictions, you got from some trash book or Atheist website. Again, if you were honest and objective and really interested in the truth then you could have found the sites I did and made some effort on your own to resolve any questions. Here are parts of three sites I found which address the issues of Genesis 1 and 2. But first I want to point out a lie in your post, which does not require knowing Hebrew, all it requires is reading what the text actually says, and not what some dog puke wannabe guru says.

"Chapter 2
18 It says because the man was alone the living things of the field and the birds were formed to be a mate or counterpart for him.

Here is what the scriptures actually say,

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

See the discussion below about the Hebrew, "LORD God [had] formed every beast. . ." Anyone honestly searching for truth would know this.

19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Note, what the verse actually says the beasts and fowl were "brought unto Adam to see what he would call them" not to be a mate for him!

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7273/biblicalcontradictions.html#Genesis

Gen 1:1 - 2:3 vs. Gen 2:4 - 2:24 -

"Charges: (1) It seems that there are two accounts of creation; we gather this from linguistic differences, repetitions and disagreements in the text (to be mentioned shortly). These make it doubtful that Moses wrote Genesis. (2) In the first creation account there were night and day, and plants before there was a sun. Besides being absurd, it is, with the passage of the next charge, contrary to the second account's Gen. 2: 4,7 (below). (3) In Gen 1:26ff, we learn that God actually created man on the sixth "day." And the earth and the heavens were created on the second and third days, two other days.(cf. Gen 1:6-9). But at the start of the second account we read, "In the day that the Lord made the earth and the heavens... the Lord God formed man of dust of the ground..." (Gen 2: 4,7)

Replies: These objections are well thought out and demonstrate a keen and admirable care to detail.

(1) Sure, there are two creation accounts. The supposed contradictions will be taken up shortly. As for Mosaic authorship, so what if he was not the author? Scripture says that Moses wrote books of laws, but it does not say that he wrote Genesis or the rest of the next four books of the Bible for that matter. Moses did not write Isaiah either. Does this mean that it is not Scripture? Certainly not! This being said, as a historical curiosity, I mention that it is quite likely that the books that Moses wrote were at least a primary basis for Genesis and the rest of the Penteteuch. More on the Documentary Theory of authorship is to be found here.

In reply to charges (2) and (3), there are several points. First, the first creation account consists of descriptions of consecutive "days" which read in the Hebrew to be undefined lengths of time (the Hebrew "yom" is quite ambiguous) or something analogous to periods of time. Further, the ordering of the days tells us nothing of chronological arrangement of events, since there is an obvious and typically Hebrew literary parallel between days one and four, two and five, and four and six. The Hebrews were no slouches when it came to the complexity of expression of sublime events. We may as well get used to it and learn to live with it, because we not going to stop seeing this until we reach the end of the Bible, the Book of Revelation.

Nor does the second account indicate exact chronological order, no matter how the "Good News Bible" "translation" reads. Rather, the description of creation now proceeds in a causal order. So the actual text now indicates that man was created, for which reason the animals were created. To insist that this indicates chronological order is to act in desperation.

Yet even if the first account were to be taken literally, and even if the Hebrew word yom, had only the meaning "day," (it has more) still the meaning for "day" in Hebrew has a range of meanings corresponding closely to "day" in English, as the B-D-B-G Hebrew Lexicon indicates. Just as we speak of "the day of the Reformation," the Hebrew spoke of "the day when God created" as a period, which itself could be further divided into smaller periods, as any period can be, obviously. So one period can contain another; it can also overlap with one or more previous or following periods. To take an example, the neo-Platonic period in philosophy overlapped with the Stoic period, the Epicurean period, the Peripatetic period and the Skeptical period. Though again, the literary parallelism between the first three days and the second three strongly suggests a non-literal intention of the author anyway."

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c023.html

"We've all heard the claims that there are many contradictions in Genesis. Many people, for instance, believe that there are inconsistencies between the creation accounts of Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2. So what about all of the supposed contradictions?
There are none!

If, with the NIV, we read 'Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east . . .' (Genesis 2:8) and, 'Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field . . .' (Genesis 2:19) with emphasis added), it is clearly seen that chapter 2 states that the plants and animals were formed before Adam. When Adam named the animals (Genesis 2:20), they obviously were already in existence. There is no contradictory significance in the order of animals listed in Genesis 2:20; it is probably the order in which Adam met the animals, while the order of their creation is given in Genesis 1:20-25. Dr Henry Morris comments:

"It was only the animals in closest proximity and most likely as theoretical candidates for companionship to man that were actually brought to him. These included the birds of the air, the cattle (verse 20 - probably the domesticated animals), and the beasts of the field, which were evidently the smaller wild animals that would live near human habitations. Those not included were the fish of the sea, the creeping things, and the beasts of the earth mentioned in Genesis 1:24, which presumably were those wild animals living at considerable distance from man and his cultivated fields." [1].

Concerning the names of geographical sites, we have no idea what the configuration of the land or the rivers was before the Flood, because the pre-Flood world was completely destroyed. The land areas and rivers named before the Flood do not correspond to similarly named features after the Flood.

The purpose of Genesis 2:18-25 is not to give another account of creation but to show that there was no kinship whatsoever between Adam and the animals. None was like him, and so none could provide fellowship or companionship for him. Why not? Because Adam had not evolved from them, but was 'a living soul' whom God had created 'in His own image' (Genesis 2:7 and 1:27). This means (among other things) that God created Adam to be a person whom He could address, and who could respond to and interact with Him. Here, as in many other places, the plain statements of the Bible confront and contradict the notion of human evolution."

[OldShepherd]

Previous Post (Continued)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1272.asp

"Between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve, the KJV/AV Bible says (Genesis 2:19) ‘out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air’. On the surface, this seems to say that the land beasts and birds were created between Adam and Eve. However, Jewish scholars apparently did not recognize any such conflict with the account in chapter 1, where Adam and Eve were both created after the beasts and birds (Genesis 1:23–25). Why is this? Because in Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb ‘formed’ in Genesis 2:19 to mean ‘had formed’ or ‘having formed’. If we translate verse 19 as follows (as one widely used translation* does), ‘Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field …’, the apparent disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely.

The question also stems from the wrong assumption that the second chapter of Genesis is just a different account of creation to that in chapter 1. It should be evident that chapter 2 is not just ‘another’ account of creation because chapter 2 says nothing about the creation of the heavens and the earth, the atmosphere, the seas, the land, the sun, the stars, the moon, the sea creatures, etc. Chapter 2 mentions only things directly relevant to the creation of Adam and Eve and their life in the garden God prepared specially for them. Chapter 1 may be understood as creation from God’s perspective; it is ‘the big picture’, an overview of the whole. Chapter 2 views the more important aspects from man’s perspective.

Genesis 2:4 says, ‘These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens’. This marks a break with chapter 1. This phraseology next occurs in Genesis 5:1, where it reads ‘This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man’.

‘Generations’ is a translation of the Hebrew word toledoth, which means ‘origin’ or ‘record of the origin’. It identifies an account or record of events. The phrase was apparently used at the end of each section in Genesis1 identifying the patriarch (Adam, Noah, the sons of Noah, Shem, etc.) to whom it primarily referred, and possibly who was responsible for the record. There are 10 such divisions in Genesis.

Each record was probably originally a stone or clay tablet. There is no person identified with the account of the origin of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1–2:4), because it refers primarily to the origin of the whole universe, not any person in particular (Adam and Eve are not mentioned by name, for example). Also, only God knew the events of creation, so God had to reveal this, possibly to Adam who recorded it. Moses, as ‘author’ of Genesis, acted as a compiler and editor of the various sections, adding explanatory notes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The toledoths acknowledge the sources of the historical records Moses used. This understanding underlines the historical nature of Genesis and its status as eyewitness history, contrary to the defunct ’documentary (JEDP) hypothesis’ still taught in many Bible colleges."

[Sandy]

Originally posted by OldShepherd
Sandy,

As with the N.T. thread I am not interested in responding to a long laundry list of supposed errors and contradictions, you got from some trash book or Atheist website. Again, if you were honest and objective and really interested in the truth then you could have found the sites I did and made some effort on your own to resolve any questions. Here are parts of three sites I found which address the issues of Genesis 1 and 2. But first I want to point out a lie in your post, which does not require knowing Hebrew, all it requires is reading what the text actually says, and not what some dog puke wannabe guru says.

Old Shepherd, you are unbelievable.
You said:

What the h*ll kind of response is that? You made a point of condemning the N.T. and Christians because they are all supposedly pagan but all you can say about the pagan similarities in the O.T. is, “such things are disturbing.” When you were up there on your high horse attacking the N.T. and Christianity, why were you ignoring the O.T.? And while you did find the so-called O.T. pagan similarities “disturbing” before, I later asked you for specific examples of “errors and contradictions” in the N.T. and you did not respond, you evaded,

I have started two new threads to deal with these things as well as questions that I have, but now you say you are not interested. Make up your mind.

Another thing, Old Shepherd. Why do you continually point me to someone elses answers. Are you unable to come up with your own answers?

Also you say here that I have lied (so what's new). I will respond to that at another time. It is late and I am tired.

Just one more thing. Everything that I wrote in my post above is solely from me. It did not come from some guru.

[Sandy]

Originally posted by OldShepherd
Sandy,

As with the N.T. thread I am not interested in responding to a long laundry list of supposed errors and contradictions, you got from some trash book or Atheist website.

Well Old Shepherd, so far on this thread and the NT thread I have posted nothing but my own thoughts. You are the one who is going to outside sources for you answers and rebuttals.

Again, if you were honest and objective and really interested in the truth then you could have found the sites I did and made some effort on your own to resolve any questions. Here are parts of three sites I found which address the issues of Genesis 1 and 2. But first I want to point out a lie in your post, which does not require knowing Hebrew, all it requires is reading what the text actually says, and not what some dog puke wannabe guru says.

Anything that you disagree with you call a lie. So by-all-means lets take a close look at what it really says. I personally prefer to use my own thoughts and words and I am asking you to do the same.

"Chapter 2
18 It says because the man was alone the living things of the field and the birds were formed to be a mate or counterpart for him.

Here is what the scriptures actually say,

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Wrong, Old Shepherd. It says:

• Genesis 2:18
  And said YHUH Elohim, It is not good that the adam should be alone. I will make a help mate for him.

See the discussion below about the Hebrew, "LORD God [had] formed every beast. . ." Anyone honestly searching for truth would know this.

Then why didn't you? Why did you have to get your answer from someone else?

19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Note, what the verse actually says the beasts and fowl were "brought unto Adam to see what he would call them" not to be a mate for him!

Verses 18-25 all go together and are part of one thought. Separating them takes them out of context.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Let's look at verses 18-23 in context.

• Genesis 2
  18) And said YHUH Elohim, It is not good that the adam should be alone. I will make a help mate for him.
  19) And formed YHUH Elohim from the adamah (ground) all life of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought to the adam to see what he would call them. And all which the adam called each living soul that was its name.
  20) And the adam called names to all the behemah and birds of the heavens and to all life of the field, but to adam not was found a help mate for him.
  21) And YHUH Elohim made a deep sleep to fall on the adam, and he slept. And he took one from his tsalah and closed the flesh from underneath.
  22) And YHUH Elohim built the tsalah, which he had taken from the adam, into an ishah (woman) and brought to the adam.
  23) And said the adam, This now at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. For this she is called ishah (woman)...

18) the adam is alone and YHUH Elohim states he will make a help mate for him.
19) YHUH Elohim forms all life of the field and the birds and brings them to the adam to see what he will call them.
20) Adam gives them names, but adam does not find them suitable as a help mate.
21) YHUH Elohim puts the adam into a deep sleep, takes a tsalah from him
22) YHUH Elohim builds the tsalah into a woman and brings her to the adam.
23) The adam finds her suitable, he says, At last this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh and he calls her ishah woman.

It doesn't tell us what names he gave the living souls (the animals and birds) which he found unsuitable as help mates, but it does tell us what he called the soul he did find suitable. He called her name Chuah/Chavah (Genesis 3:20).

[DeAnna]

Shalom everyone,

I would very much appreciate some in put from someone, anyone, on what I consider "true" contradictions in scripture.
These things make me go "hmmm"... and have for some time now... and they are still not "resovled" in my heart and mind. Though I have "suspicions", I've yet to receive any concrete conformations.
I would very much like to know what / how others think about it.

Leviticus 18:9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.

KJV Leviticus 18:11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

KJV Deuteronomy 27:22 Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.

And Yet:
Gen. 20:11-12
And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of Elhym is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake.
12 And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.

So here we have Isaac, the seed through which ALL NATIONS are to be BLESSED, born of this very relationship.

Now there are they that would say; "well... that was before the written law." But I'm sorry... that just does not satisfy me. For Yah says "I am Yah and I change not". And there is evidence among the scholars (according to micro soft encyclopedia) that "the law" contained in deut. and Lev. Existed long before Moses time. Now most would say; "see, theres proof that the Law of Yah has been around much longer.
And...
Were not Adam and Eve of "close relation"? (smile)
Also... there is the deal with Tamar and her brother.

KJV 2 Samuel 13:2 And Amnon was so vexed, that he fell sick for his sister Tamar; for she was a virgin; and Amnon thought it hard for him to do any thing to her.
11 And when she had brought them unto him to eat, he took hold of her, and said unto her, Come lie with me, my sister.

Take note as to what Tamar says to him:

13 ".....I pray thee, speak unto the king; for he will "NOT" withhold me from thee."

Notice the "king" is their father David. And she says "He will NOT withhold me from thee". And yet King David LOVED the law of Yah! And is KNOWN to uphold it! If David was aware of this law, WHY did Tamar insist that David would not withhold her from her brother?

And then there is:

KJV Leviticus 18:12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman
KJV Leviticus 20:19 And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.

And yet:
KJV Exodus 6:20 And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses: and the years of the life of Amram were an hundred and thirty and seven years.
KJV Numbers 26:59 And the name of Amram's wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, whom her mother bare to Levi in Egypt: and she bare unto Amram Aaron and Moses, and Miriam their sister.

Abraham, Sarah, (Isaac) Moses, Aaron (and even David indirectly) ... Now these are not just "some" KEY people in the bible to be in or born of such relationships. These are "THE" Key people of the Bible. Am I the only one that finds this quite strange?

Then there is:
KJV Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

KJV Leviticus 20:20 And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.
KJV Leviticus 20:21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.

Again... is this not strange? Why not "death" to those of the spoken relationship?

As I have seen many preach/teach that those that love Yah are obediant to all of His laws. I do agree... but not sure we are in agreement with just exactly what these laws are.
For there are certainly many scriptures that do say "all of my commands, statues and judgments... I'm just not completely convinced that all the laws that are written in the bible are truly from Yah. For I do think it is possible that man or translations could have slanted things here and there. Same goes with the
greek. Please bare with me. All the more reason I believe Yah does, has, and will continue to "write His laws upon our hearts". For this I believe is our only hope for obediance unto His true law. For He does say; "by His hand..."

For we have the "Levitical Law", the "Law of Moses" etc.
There are things written that just make me go "Hmmm".
another example:

Deut. 24:4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

And then there is:
Jeremiah 3:1 "They say", If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith Yah.

Why is it "they say"... Why is it not "Yah says" ?

Dont get me wrong... I'm not knocking the "Bible". I still love it. But something tells me that what Yahshua is said is true. That the Kingdom is indeed "with in", and we are not going to be able to go to an "outside" source for it. Not even the bible. It is something that must take place "inside". And revelations of Yah must take place "Inside". And our "gut" that pretty much tells us when we are wrong (wether we want to hear at the time or not). Surely takes place "Inside". I believe EVERYONE has a "gut". and that "gut" is the still small voice of Yah, and it speaks the truth.

But regardless... I would still very much like to know how others deal with these contridictions. (at least to me they seem to contridict very much)

Sincerely,
D'

[Sandy]

Hi DeAnna
You have asked some very good questions.
Not only do I NOT have any answers for your questions, but I also have been asking some of those as well as many others for a while now and have received no satisfying answers. It is nice to know there are others, like you, who also see these things and are not afraid to ask questions.

[DeAnna]

Shalom Sandy,

And thank you for your response! Usually I am treated like a leper when I brings things like this up. Or no one responds at all.
I appreciate your acknowledgement that these things need a bit of "tending too".

There are also "issues" with the words "adultery" and "fornication" and their original and "scriptural" meaning that I plan to post on as well... It may even be all related somehow... not sure. However... it is related to our idea of the term "marriage" in respect of how we have come to view it in terms of the churches. I have so many "posts/ ideas" going on in my head that I need to slow down and concentrate on ONE.

Anyway... when I start the thread on the above words and all I have found... I hope you will join me there. I am longing for someone that is not afraid to "dig" and speak "truth" regardless if it is what we have been "taught to believe" or not. ya know?

But I wanted to say "thank you". I felt your post to me to be encouraging and yes... it let me know... "your not alone DeAnna".
Thanks Sandy. I was starting to wonder. (smile)

Sincerely,
D'

[OldShepherd]

Sandy,

"I have started two new threads to deal with these things as well as questions that I have, but now you say you are not interested. Make up your mind.?

Why don't you pay attention. I have no problem dealing with an individuals genuine questions and concerns, but I said, "I am not interested in responding to a long list of someone else's so-called errors and contradictions that you might have gotten from some trash book or website. You may claim that the so-called errors and contradictions you post are your own discovery but you have demonstrated that you can surf the net, sifting through various websites, to find a few which support you, while ignoring many others which don't. So I am certain you are well aware of the many lists online of so-called errors and contradictions. Now when some of the "errors" you post happen to be identical to one on those lists. Did you copy it or find it yourself? Who knows?

Another thing, Old Shepherd. Why do you continually point me to someone elses answers. Are you unable to come up with your own answers??

I'm going to try to make a long answer short. Basically it is not necessary to reinvent the wheel every time someone, like you, comes along and claims they have found some new error in the Bible. Take a look at Lou's post "How the N.T. was put together" or some such dog puke, the same old so-called errors and alleged contradictions have been argued from the very beginning. The genealogy of Jesus, the authorship and reliability of the N.T., etc. You haven't found anything new, you have not made some heretofore unknown discovery.

The critics, skeptics, agnostics, and atheists have been around from when the first words were written down, smirking, sneering, accusing, criticizing, claiming to expose what they say are errors and contradictions and the real scholars, many who have spent their entire lives in Biblical studies, who actually spoke, read, and wrote the Biblical languages, who knew the history, who knew the culture, have been thoroughly studying the so-called problems and writing books, and books, and books, debunking and refuting the allegations. Therefore, why should I waste my time writing out responses to the same old tired questions and objections which have been around for almost 2000 years?

Also you say here that I have lied (so what's new). I will respond to that at another time. It is late and I am tired.

Chapter 2
18 It says because the man was alone the living things of the field and the birds were formed to be a mate or counterpart for him.

When I say you are lying, it is not a matter of whether or not I agree with you or you with me but whether or not what you say conforms to the facts and you knew or should have known that. In your previous post, quoted above, you say that verse 18 "says the living things of the field and the birds were formed to be a mate or counterpart for Adam. To which I responded,

Here is what the scriptures actually say,

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.?

And then you want to play childish games. In the previous post you said "the man" in this response, where you are trying to correct me you say "the adam" But whichever you say, the verse does not say, "the living things of the field and the birds were formed to be a mate or counterpart for man or Adam.

Wrong, Old Shepherd. It says:

Genesis 2:18
And said YHUH Elohim, It is not good that the adam should be alone. I will make a help mate for him.

Since you want to play games and instruct me in the Hebrew here is the Hebrew for the entire verse.

"wayamer yhwh e'lohim lo-tob hayoth hadam l'bado a'asheh-lo azar k'negdo?

There is no such word or name as YHUH. The third letter in the Tetragrammaton is waw (w) or vav (v). It is pronounced as a "U" when pointed in the bosom of the letter, it is pronounced as "O" when it is pointed above the letter, and it is pronounced as a "W" or "V" when written as a consonant. Regardless how the letter is pointed the name of the letter is Waw or Vav and the correct way of representing that in English, in the Tetragrammaton, is YHWH or YHVH. One of the many, many, pronunciations of YHWH used by sacred namers is Yahuh, but there is no historical, archaeological, or linguistic support for that. That is just someone's guess who doesn't know diddly about Hebrew. I just thought I would throw that in since you are presuming to teach and correct me.

So in your previous post and this post where you correctly quote verse 18, it does not imply or "says the living things of the field and the birds were formed to be a mate or counterpart for the man or Adam. And neither does any previous or subsequent verse.

You rely on the fact that since verse 19, according to you says, "And formed YHUH Elohim from the adamah (ground) all life of the field and every bird of the heavens, which immediately follows, "I will make a help mate for him" in vs. 18, that somehow proves that YHWH created the animals to be a help for Adam.

19) And formed YHUH Elohim from the adamah (ground) all life of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought to the adam to see what he would call them. And all which the adam called each living soul that was its name.

Later, still trying to prove that YHWH created the animals to be Adam's mate, you state, "Let's look at verses 18-23 in context." By all means lets do exactly that. Lets look at the context of Bereshith 2:18-19 in the context of the preceding chapter 1:25-26. Those who are honestly seeking the truth, will immediately notice that in Gen 1:25 the animals and fowls are created first and afterward in verse 26, Adam is created and given dominion over the wild creatures.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.'

As I stated in my previous post and at least one of my quotes the Hebrew of 2:19 can and should be translated "And out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field, and every fowl, etc. which agrees completely with 1:25-26. The wild creatures, which had already been made, before HaAdam, were brought to him and he exercised his dominion over them by naming them.

But all this requires wisdom, understanding, common sense, and an open mind.

The difference between my lists and yours is, my lists examine all sides of the issues. They state the question or problem then list solutions and in many cases anticipate and respond to counter arguments. On the other hand all the lists, like your questions and so-called contradictions, only state your assumptions, without making any attempt to understand or resolve anything. "Here it is. Boy, see how smart I am. Now lets see you Christians answer this.?

This so-called animal-help mate contradiction also assumes that YHWH was stupid. Although YHWH created the world and every living thing from nothing, He created a perfectly formed man on the very first try. And in verse 2:22, YHWH created a perfect mate for Adam, without, I might add, any help from all you critics.

But somehow in between, in verse 19, according to you, YHWH supposedly gets the stupids. Although the average person can look at a cow or a chicken and know that is not a suitable mate for a man. And, in Gen 1:24, YHWH had said that every creature would reproduce after it own kind. But suddenly YHWH forgets what He said and supposedly lines up all the creatures in the world and tries to find a mate for Adam, among the cows, chickens, and snakes.

Ge 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

What I see is people saying I don't care that there are hundreds of colleges, universities, and seminaries throughout the world which have hundreds and hundreds of staff and faculty who have made a life's work of studying the Bible, Biblical history, and archeology, The Biblical languages Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, 20-30 years and more. I am so much smarter and know so much more about the Bible than all of them. I can sit here in my home in Noplace, NJ (or Texas or wherever) with my Bible and my Strong's, find all these errors and contradictions in the Bible, and ask all these profound questions, and they can't answer me. And because I am just so, so, clever, although I have not read them, I know that all the books those scholars have written, which do not agree with my amazingly brilliant conclusions are prejudiced and boring.

[Sandy]

Originally posted by OldShepherd
Sandy,

”Old Shepherd. Why do you continually point me to someone elses answers. Are you unable to come up with your own answers?”

I’m going to try to make a long answer short. Basically it is not necessary to reinvent the wheel every time someone, like you, comes along and claims they have found some new error in the Bible. Take a look at Lou’s post “How the N.T. was put together” or some such dog puke, the same old so-called errors and alleged contradictions have been argued from the very beginning. The genealogy of Jesus, the authorship and reliability of the N.T., etc. You haven’t found anything new, you have not made some heretofore unknown discovery.

I never claimed that the things I saw or discovered were something new or undiscovered, which BTW I started seeing long before I ever bought my computer and learned to surf the net. I have only had a computer for two and a half years. I started my studies and research in 1988. My basic study tools are a four volume Interlinear Bible containing both Old and New Testaments, Strong's Concordance and a couple of older dictionaries. Now that I have a computer I include it as a search tool, but whenever it comes down to the nitty-gritty of the Scriptures my basic tools are still my Interlinear Bible, Strong's Concordance and dictionaries. And the majority of the time I prefer to use my own thoughts concerning the scriptures rather than copying and pasting someone elses.

About 1994 I put some of the things I had discovered into a booklet that I called "The Simple Truth of the Bible". About a year later I wrote a condensed version which I called "Little Booklet Big Revelation". I also wrote some pamphlets which I called "Soul Food". I now have my own web site which among other things includes some of the material from my booklet. I also have a forum of my own.

The critics, skeptics, agnostics, and atheists have been around from when the first words were written down, smirking, sneering, accusing, criticizing, claiming to expose what they say are errors and contradictions and the real scholars, many who have spent their entire lives in Biblical studies, who actually spoke, read, and wrote the Biblical languages, who knew the history, who knew the culture, have been thoroughly studying the so-called problems and writing books, and books, and books, debunking and refuting the allegations. Therefore, why should I waste my time writing out responses to the same old tired questions and objections which have been around for almost 2000 years?

And why do you think these questions have continued to linger for almost 2000 years? It couldn't possibly be because many of them are legit could it?

When I say you are lying, it is not a matter of whether or not I agree with you or you with me but whether or not what you say conforms to the facts and you knew or should have known that. In your previous post, quoted above, you say that verse 18 “says the living things of the field and the birds were formed to be a mate or counterpart for Adam. To which I responded,

Here is what the scriptures actually say,

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.”

And then you want to play childish games. In the previous post you said “the man”, in this response, where you are trying to correct me you say “the adam” But whichever you say, the verse does not say, “the living things of the field and the birds were formed to be a mate or counterpart for man or Adam.

”Wrong, Old Shepherd. It says:

Genesis 2:18
And said YHUH Elohim, It is not good that the adam should be alone. I will make a help mate for him.

Since you want to play games and instruct me in the Hebrew here is the Hebrew for the entire verse.

“wayamer yhwh e'lohim lo-tob hayoth hadam l'bado a'asheh-lo azar k'negdo”

There is no such word or name as YHUH. The third letter in the Tetragrammaton is waw (w) or vav (v). It is pronounced as a “U” when pointed in the bosom of the letter, it is pronounced as “O” when it is pointed above the letter, and it is pronounced as a “W” or “V” when written as a consonant. Regardless how the letter is pointed the name of the letter is “waw”/”vav” and the correct way of representing that in English, in the Tetragrammaton, is YHWH or YHVH. One of the many, many, pronunciations of YHWH used by sacred namers is Yahuh, but there is no historical, archaeological, or linguistic support for that. That is just someone’s guess who doesn’t know diddly about Hebrew. I just thought I would throw that in since you are presuming to teach and correct me.

Surely you are not so naive as to think that I have not been confronted on the name issue before. I will address that issue, as well as the rest of your reply, in separate posts.

[Sandy]

Originally posted by OldShepherd
Sandy,

You rely on the fact that since verse 19, according to you says, “And ”formed YHUH Elohim from the adamah (ground) all life of the field and every bird of the heavens”, which immediately follows, “I will make a help mate for him”, in vs. 18, that somehow proves that YHWH created the animals to be a help for Adam.

19) And formed YHUH Elohim from the adamah (ground) all life of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought to the adam to see what he would call them. And all which the adam called each living soul that was its name.

Later, still trying to prove that YHWH created the animals to be Adam’s mate, you state, “Let's look at verses 18-23 in context.” By all means lets do exactly that. Lets look at the context of Bershith 2:18-19 in the context of the preceding chapter 1:25-26. Those who are honestly seeking the truth, will immediately notice that in Gen 1:25 the animals and fowls are created first and afterward in verse 26, Adam is created and given dominion over the wild creatures.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.'

As I stated in my previous post and at least one of my quotes the Hebrew of 2:19 can and should be translated “And out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field, and every fowl, etc.” which agrees completely with 1:25-26. The wild creatures, which had already been made, before HaAdam, were brought to him and he exercised his dominion over them by naming them.

But all this requires wisdom, understanding, common sense, and an open mind.

You are ignoring what it says in Genesis 1:27-28

• 27) And Elohim created the adam (humankind/mankind) in his image, in the image of Elohim he created him, MALE and FEMALE he created them;
  28) and Elohim blessed them, and Elohim said to them, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it. And rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the heavens etc.

Both the male and the female adam not just the male adam were told to rule over the birds, animals, and fish.

Even if you believe the animals and birds of Chapter two are merely the animals and birds of chapter one being brought to the man, you are still ignoring statements made in Genesis 2:18-23 which tie the verses together and show the animals and birds were to be help mates to the man.

• 18) the man is alone and YHUH Elohim states a help mate will be made for him.
  19) All life of the field and the birds formed (in chapter one) are brought to the man to see what he will call them.
  20) The man gives them names, but he does not find them suitable as a help mate.
  21) The man is put into a deep sleep, a tsalah is taken from him
  22) The tsalah is built into a woman and she is brought to the man (just as the animals before her were) .
  23) The man finds her suitable and says, At last this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh and he calls her ishah/woman.

[DeAnna]

Shalom Sandy and Old Shep.

I have often wondered why the bible makes it appear that Yah did not know that any of the animals would not have been a "suitable" help mete for Adam.

Don't know how "open" you guys are to this, but I found that all things are symbolic of Yahs plan and of our relationship to Him.
Please bare with me.

Adam knowingly "ate" of the apple. In essence He willingly gave his life for Havah (Eve). Which means: "life". He gave his life ... for life. Not unlike Yahshua.

Anyway... I think what the above is "symbolic" of is US FIRST Looking for our "wholeness" in all the wrong places. We look for it in man made doctrines and customs and traditions which is not unlike us communing with the "beast" or "man". And though often we find that this religion/church/doctrine etc. is not suitable for us... none the less... we gave it a shot first. We tend to search to and fro ONLY to find in the end that it had to come "from WITHIN" ... just as Adam found his "wholeness" from within him. Nothing on the "outside" of him would due.

A nice thought to keep in mind is that Yes... YAH sent them out, but YAH "clothed" them. Even though they had "made" clothes for themselves... (which is not unlike us trying to obtain our own righteousness or trying to "clothe" > ourself. But the clothes they made were not good enough... (obviously) Because Yah saw it necessary to "clothe" adam and havah Himself. Yah IS our clothing. He and He alone can cover our "nakedness" (sin).

Just thought I'd share what came to mind.

May Yah be magnified!

Love,
D'

[Sandy]

Thank you DeAnna for your thoughts on this complicated subject.

[OldShepherd]

Sandy,

"You are ignoring what it says in Genesis 1:27-28

27) And Elohim created the adam (humankind/mankind) in his image, in the image of Elohim he created him, MALE and FEMALE he created them;
28) and Elohim blessed them, and Elohim said to them, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it. And rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the heavens etc.

Both the male and the female adam not just the male adam were told to rule over the birds, animals, and fish.

I am ignoring nothing. How does the fact that Adam, alone, named the animals, preclude both Adam and Chavah, together, from ruling over the animals afterward? Since Chavah was an integral part of Adam, when he did the naming, she was very much a part of it. Further the naming was a very small, almost insignificant, part of Adam's dominion over the animals. Adam-kind could very well lead, rule, care for animals without ever giving them names.

But on the other hand, despite the clear statement in Gen 1:24, that every living creature would bring forth after its own kind, you are still so blindly intent on proving that, YHWH created animals and fowls for the purpose of finding a help (mate) for Adam, among them, that you deliberately ignore anything which contradicts your assumption. For example, I said previously said,

"This so-called animal-help mate contradiction also assumes that YHWH was stupid. Although YHWH created the world and every living thing from nothing, He (also) created a perfectly formed man on the very first try. And in verse 2:22, YHWH created a perfect mate for Adam, without, I might add, any help from all you critics.

But somehow in between, in verse 19, according to you, YHWH supposedly gets the stupids. Although the average person can look at a cow or a chicken and know that they are not a suitable mate for a man. And, in Gen 1:24, YHWH had said that every creature would reproduce after it own kind. But suddenly (according to you) YHWH forgets what He said and supposedly lines up all the creatures in the world and tries to find a mate for Adam, among the cows, chickens, and snakes.

Ge 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."

First, I will add that your false assumption that YHWH created the animals as a mate for Adam also contradicts YHWH's earlier command that Adam was to have dominion and rule over ،°all the earth،±, over all living things (Gen 1:26). Adam was created superior to the animals, if an animal existed that was his equal, he would not have dominion and rule over all the animals. YHWH created Adam in His own image, surely He would have known if there existed any other creature in His image!

Therefore YHWH could not have created animals and brought them to Adam to find him a mate without violating two of His own previous commands, man was to have dominion over all animals and all creatures reproduce after their own kind. They do all interbreed across species.

Second, your translation is false. The word you translate "mate" (k'negdo) (kaph, nun, gimel, daleth, waw) never means ،°mate.،± It is derived from the word nagad which means "be conspicious" According to the authoritative Hebrew Lexicon, Brown-Driver-Briggs, k'negdo means equal, equivalent, or adequate to,

"With preps.: a. (kaph, nun, gimel, waw) acc. to what is in front of = corresponding to, A'asheh-lo 'azer k'negdo a help corresponding to him i.e. equal and adequate to himself." Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, C.A. Briggs, Oxford University Press, 1980.

Third, I remind you, again, that in verse 2:19 YHWH clearly stated His purpose for bringing all the creatures to Adam, "to see what he would name each one." it is not stated or implied that He, YHWH, was seeking a mate for Adam among the animals. In verse 22, Adam is not commanded to name the woman, as he was the animals, but aware of his aloneness and need for a companion he gives here a special name.

Here are two Jewish translations, Jewish Publication Society and Orthodox ORT Union, of this passage. I prefer to rely on those who know Hebrew, rather than translations by self appointed amateurs who have not demonstrated even the most basic knowledge of Hebrew. Note, in verse 20, it was the man, Adam, not YHWH, who did not find a helper who was compatible for him, among the animals.

(ORT) 2:18 God said, 'It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a compatible helper for him.'
19 God had formed every wild beast and every bird of heaven out of the ground. He [now] brought [them] to the man to see what he would name each one. Whatever the man called each living thing [would] remain its name.
20 The man named every livestock animal and bird of the sky, as well as all the wild beasts. But the man did not find a helper who was compatible for him.
21 God then made the man fall into a deep state of unconsciousness, and he slept. He took one of his ribs and closed the flesh in its place.
22 God built the rib that he took from the man into a woman, and He brought her to the man. 2:23 The man said, 'Now this is now bone from my bone and flesh from my flesh. She shall be called Woman (Ishah) because she was taken from man (ish).'

(JPS) 18 And the LORD God said: ،®It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.،¯
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them; and whatsoever the man would call every living creature, that was to be the name thereof.
20 And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the place with flesh instead thereof.
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. {Woman: Heb. Isha} {Man: Heb. Ish}

Although the text does not state that YHWH created the animals to be a mate for Adam or brought the animals to Adam, for the purpose of seeking a mate for him, you insist on, twisting the words, imposing your own assumptions and presumptions onto the text, trying to force the text to say what you want it to. You deliberately ignore what is clearly stated in several preceding passages. What you think the text implies is more important than what the text actually, literally says.

Let me draw an analogy of which clearly demonstrates the absurdity of your thinking. Let us suppose that you know you have a heart problem. So you consult Joe Dipstick down the street. He has never attended any medical school, all he has done is buy a copy of Gray،¯s Anatomy, a Latin dictionary, and a few medical Text books and proclaims himself a doctor. Now you go to him and he says, ،°We،¯ll do a heart transplant.،±
Sandy, ،°Do you know how to do it?،±
Joe, ،°Sure, I read all about it in my books here, and I used my Latin dictionary to look up words I didn،¯t understand.،±
Sandy, ،°Well, maybe you should go to medical school, spend about twelve years learning medicine from professional doctors who have spent years studying and practicing medicine!،±
Joe, ،°Nah! I،¯m not going to listen to them or read their books, the medical profession has been all wrong for 2000 years, they are all prejudiced! Let me clear away the dinner dishes and you hop up here on the operating table.،±

Of course, nobody could get away with that for very long in the U.S., because there are laws to protect people from every wannabe quack who comes along. There are educational and licensing requirements, not only in medicine, but in many other professions, as well, Dentistry, Law, Public Accountants, and others. Even hairdressers are required to have a license.

But there are no such laws for religion! Anyone, whether he or she is reasonably mature and intelligent or a total nut case, can buy a Strong،¯s, at virtually any bookstore, and their pet version of the Bible, ،°The Scriptures،±, ،°The Interlinear Bible،±, phony PhD James Trimm،¯s so-called Aramaic/Hebrew N.T., or the version of the House of Yee Haw in Abilene, all of which says exactly what their supporters want it to say, and ba-da-bing, they are an instant expert. And the cemeteries are full of their victims, e.g. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Hale-Bopp in San Diego, etc. ،°Hey, follow me all you dumb gullible sheep, all those other guys are wrong, I،¯m the only one that has the truth. You don،¯t need to worry about any of that Hebrew and Greek stuff. Since I got my Strong،¯s and my pet version right here, I،¯m an expert.،±

L،¯mantzakh l،¯dud nabal b،¯lbo ،®ain elohei hashkhitho hathibo lileh ،®ain sheh-tob

kh،¯khleb sheb l،¯okh،¯ai kh،¯shil shonah b،¯a،¯ltho

[Sandy]

Originally posted by OldShepherd
Sandy,

...despite the clear statement in Gen 1:24, that every living creature would bring forth after its own kind, you are still so blindly intent on proving that, YHWH created animals and fowls for the purpose of finding a help (mate) for Adam, among them, that you deliberately ignore anything which contradicts your assumption. For example, I said previously said,

"This so-called animal-help mate contradiction also assumes that YHWH was stupid. Although YHWH created the world and every living thing from nothing, He (also) created a perfectly formed man on the very first try. And in verse 2:22, YHWH created a perfect mate for Adam, without, I might add, any help from all you critics.

First, I will add that your false assumption that YHWH created the animals as a mate for Adam also contradicts YHWH's earlier command that Adam was to have dominion and rule over ،°all the earth،±, over all living things (Gen 1:26). Adam was created superior to the animals, if an animal existed that was his equal, he would not have dominion and rule over all the animals. YHWH created Adam in His own image, surely He would have known if there existed any other creature in His image!

Therefore YHWH could not have created animals and brought them to Adam to find him a mate without violating two of His own previous commands, man was to have dominion over all animals and all creatures reproduce after their own kind. They do all interbreed across species.

I know that what I am about to say is going to get your dander up, but so-be-it.

Are you absolutely, positively, without a doubt, sure that the Elohim of Genesis one is the same being as YHWH Elohim of Genesis two?

Second, your translation is false. The word you translate "mate" (k'negdo) (kaph, nun, gimel, daleth, waw) never means ،°mate.،± It is derived from the word nagad which means "be conspicious" According to the authoritative Hebrew Lexicon, Brown-Driver-Briggs, k'negdo means equal, equivalent, or adequate to,

"With preps.: a. (kaph, nun, gimel, waw) acc. to what is in front of = corresponding to, A'asheh-lo 'azer k'negdo a help corresponding to him i.e. equal and adequate to himself." Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, C.A. Briggs, Oxford University Press, 1980.

Old shepherd, your arguments are doing nothing but re-enforcing what I have been saying. You say my translation is false because I use help mate instead of help meet as the Jewish translation below uses. Do you know what meet means?

• meet adj. [A.S. gemaete, of suitable dimensions, akin to metan, to measure], suitable; fitting; proper; appropriate.

How does the above meaning given for the word nagad change anything?

Isn't something equal, equivalent or adequate to himself rather opposite of having dominion over?

Third, I remind you, again, that in verse 2:19 YHWH clearly stated His purpose for bringing all the creatures to Adam, "to see what he would name each one." it is not stated or implied that He, YHWH, was seeking a mate for Adam among the animals. In verse 22, Adam is not commanded to name the woman, as he was the animals, but aware of his aloneness and need for a companion he gives here a special name.

They were brought to Adam to see what he would call them. He was not commanded to do this.

Here are two Jewish translations, Jewish Publication Society and Orthodox ORT Union, of this passage. I prefer to rely on those who know Hebrew, rather than translations by self appointed amateurs who have not demonstrated even the most basic knowledge of Hebrew. Note, in verse 20, it was the man, Adam, not YHWH, who did not find a helper who was compatible for him, among the animals.

I totally agree that it was the man, Adam who did not find a helper who was compatible for him among the animals. I don't think I indicated otherwise.

(ORT) 2:18 God said, 'It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a compatible helper for him.'
19 God had formed every wild beast and every bird of heaven out of the ground. He [now] brought [them] to the man to see what he would name each one. Whatever the man called each living thing [would] remain its name.
20 The man named every livestock animal and bird of the sky, as well as all the wild beasts. But the man did not find a helper who was compatible for him.
21 God then made the man fall into a deep state of unconsciousness, and he slept. He took one of his ribs and closed the flesh in its place.
22 God built the rib that he took from the man into a woman, and He brought her to the man. 2:23 The man said, 'Now this is now bone from my bone and flesh from my flesh. She shall be called Woman (Ishah) because she was taken from man (ish).'

(JPS) 18 And the LORD God said: ،®It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.،¯
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them; and whatsoever the man would call every living creature, that was to be the name thereof.
20 And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the place with flesh instead thereof.
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. {Woman: Heb. Isha} {Man: Heb. Ish}

Thank you for the Jewish translations, they clearly show the animals were made to be a help meet (companion) for the man/adam, but he found them unsuitable, so a woman was made to be his help meet (companion). Exactly what I have been stating all along.

BTW, just for the record. The meaning of MATE.

• mate,
  1, a companion or associate; fellow worker; helper.
  2, a peer; an equal.
  3, spouse; also, the male or female of a pair of animals for breeding.