Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 158 (8147 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-20-2014 5:13 PM
73 online now:
Jon, Modulous (AdminModulous), nwr, ooh-child, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle (8 members, 65 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MikeManea
Post Volume:
Total: 738,152 Year: 23,993/28,606 Month: 1,294/1,786 Week: 156/423 Day: 66/90 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
14NextFF
Author Topic:   Genesis 1 and 2: The Difference Between Created and Formed
Teets_Creationist
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 210 (318898)
06-07-2006 7:51 PM


There was a thread recently, and I have been told that they are common, about Genesis 1 and 2. Sadly, even those who may agree with me on this topic, were short coming with their explinations on why, if taken literally, they are not in contradiction with each other. I am here to clear up this errant thinking that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory as far as man being created after the beasts in Genesis 1, and then being "created" again, before the beasts, in Genesis 2. First thing to consider is the wording in the passages. Genesis 1 clearly uses the word CREATED and MADE, and GENESIS 2 uses the word FORMED. Regardless of wether the words are synonymous or not, it is a fact that they are completely different words. Synonomus don't always mean the exact same meaning. As far as the actual definition of the words, we all know that words have changed meaning, or had definitions added on throughout history. Take, for example, the word GAY. A 1611 dictionary would not have the definition of the word GAY as a HOMOSEXUAL, but go to Dictionary.com, and the first definition of the word GAY is "Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex".
So, how are we going to figure out what definition of the words we are going to use? Read the entire passages, and see what they have to say. Because many of you may not be accustomed to the King James Version of the Bible, I will help you along, just link here http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=1477 to an online version of the Bible, or follow me as we go along the verses using your own KJV Bible. For arguments sake, we will use the Dictionary.com number 1. defintions of all these following word:

CREATE (tr.v.) created, creating, creates: 1. To cause to exist; bring into being

VOID (adj.) : 1. Containing no matter; empty.

MAKE (v.) made, making, makes: 1. To cause to exist or happen; bring about; create: made problems for us; making a commotion.

FORM (n.):
1. a. The shape and structure of an object.
2. b. The body or outward appearance of a person or an animal considered separately from the face or head; figure.
formed, forming, forms (v.):
1. a. To give form to; shape: form clay into figures.
2. b. To develop in the mind; conceive: form an opinion.
Ok, remember, we are doing this as a literalist, and you have me to walk you along and explain every step of the way, lets do this:

Genesis 1:1 - This verse is clear, God created (brought into existence) the earth and the heavens.

Genesis 1:2 - This verse is key to solving your "mystery" In this verse, we come across two problems with the earth after the initial foundation of the earth is created. "And the earth was without form; and void". Notice how it is clear here, with the word void, that it had nothing in it. It was not filled at this time. So we can gather from this, that it needs something CREATED, and FORMED.

Genesis 1:25 - "...God made the beast of the earth"

Genesis 1:26 - "...God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..."

Genesis 1:27 - "So God created man in his own image..." these verses make it clear that MAKE, and CREATE are the same. No where in this chapter has anything been "formed" yet. So we can conclude without a doubt, that MADE and CREATED are the same, however FORMED carrys on a different meaning.

Now onto the "controversey". The second chapter. Notice the first five verses are an account of what was created in the first chapter. After this account, no longer is the word created or made used in Chapter 2, until the creation of the woman is gone into more detail. This must mean, that something else is happening. Indeed, something else is happening, the earth and everything that was MADE in Chapter 1, is now being FORMED in Chapter 2. We are not having everything created again, which is the reason for the wording change. Remeber, "the earth was without form; and void". CREATED covers the "void" problem, and, obviously, FORMED covers the "without form" problem. No controversey here, unless you want to take the Bible out of context, in a non-literal way.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by ramoss, posted 06-07-2006 9:16 PM Teets_Creationist has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 06-07-2006 9:36 PM Teets_Creationist has responded
 Message 25 by arachnophilia, posted 06-08-2006 9:28 AM Teets_Creationist has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Jon, posted 06-09-2006 5:39 AM Teets_Creationist has not yet responded
 Message 129 by Philip, posted 07-14-2006 12:07 PM Teets_Creationist has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 210 (318899)
06-07-2006 7:52 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 2807
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 3 of 210 (318915)
06-07-2006 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Teets_Creationist
06-07-2006 7:51 PM


The words in both GEnesis 1 and Genesis 2 , although translated differently, basically mean 'formed'. That includes man, and also the heavens and the earth. In Genesis 1, God looked over the water(chaos), and seperated it into order (heavens and earth). It wasn't until more modern times that the concept of 'God creating the universe' came about.
This was not the ancient Hebrews concept though.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Teets_Creationist, posted 06-07-2006 7:51 PM Teets_Creationist has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5143
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 4 of 210 (318919)
06-07-2006 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Teets_Creationist
06-07-2006 7:51 PM


Was the Bible written in English in 1611? I always thought that was a translation from earlier texts. Why are you putting any emphasis at all on what words a bunch of Church of England guys chose for their version?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Teets_Creationist, posted 06-07-2006 7:51 PM Teets_Creationist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Teets_Creationist, posted 06-07-2006 10:10 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Teets_Creationist
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 210 (318924)
06-07-2006 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coragyps
06-07-2006 9:36 PM


http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=1&t=193&m=1
There's a link to the original thread. It is true that a 1611 dictionary would be necessary to get the exact meaning of the words at the time of the KJV Bible being written, but I don't have one on hand. Any older definitions of the words are welcome, however it doesn't change the fact that they are still two distinctly different words. Why am I using this English translation of the Bible? This is because it is a literal Bible that is being attacked. You have to take into consideration that people who believe in a literal Bible believe the English Bible translations to be the preserved word of God. So, any attack on a literal Bible can be aimed at the KJV Bible, and any response can be made with it likewise.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 06-07-2006 9:36 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by anglagard, posted 06-07-2006 11:03 PM Teets_Creationist has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 06-07-2006 11:33 PM Teets_Creationist has not yet responded
 Message 8 by ramoss, posted 06-07-2006 11:34 PM Teets_Creationist has not yet responded
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 06-08-2006 2:28 AM Teets_Creationist has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2013
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 6 of 210 (318942)
06-07-2006 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Teets_Creationist
06-07-2006 10:10 PM


English-only Christianity
quote:
You have to take into consideration that people who believe in a literal Bible believe the English Bible translations to be the preserved word of God. So, any attack on a literal Bible can be aimed at the KJV Bible, and any response can be made with it likewise.

So a person has to speak English to understand the Bible and gain entrance to Heaven?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Teets_Creationist, posted 06-07-2006 10:10 PM Teets_Creationist has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 16196
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 7 of 210 (318945)
06-07-2006 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Teets_Creationist
06-07-2006 10:10 PM


You have to take into consideration that people who believe in a literal Bible believe the English Bible translations to be the preserved word of God. So, any attack on a literal Bible can be aimed at the KJV Bible, and any response can be made with it likewise.

Most literalists I'm aware of, including myself, believe that the Bible is word-for-word exact only in the originals. I also believe that God preserves the meaning of His revelation through all translations, but translation by its nature cannot render a perfect word-for-word meaning from one language to another. There are too many differences between languages.

I do think the original King James had a lot going for it: A great number of great scholars who were also spiritually fine Christians did the translating and they had a huge array of texts to work from, in many different languages including earlier English texts, other European languages, Middle Eastern languages, Roman of course, as well as Hebrew and Greek. I still think the KJV is the best to date, but its archaic language has to be continually updated. The Bible has to be read in the language people actually speak or it's useless.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Teets_Creationist, posted 06-07-2006 10:10 PM Teets_Creationist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by arachnophilia, posted 06-08-2006 8:48 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 27 by riVeRraT, posted 06-08-2006 11:28 PM Faith has responded

    
ramoss
Member
Posts: 2807
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 8 of 210 (318946)
06-07-2006 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Teets_Creationist
06-07-2006 10:10 PM


Why would would the KJV bible be relavent at all?? I would think the original hebrew is much more relavent, as well as the beliefs about cosmology, and the culture of the time it was written down.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Teets_Creationist, posted 06-07-2006 10:10 PM Teets_Creationist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 06-07-2006 11:37 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 24761
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 9 of 210 (318948)
06-07-2006 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by ramoss
06-07-2006 11:34 PM


It's too bad that there isn't a single original manuscript for any of the Bible. Guess we will never know what it said. :P


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ramoss, posted 06-07-2006 11:34 PM ramoss has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by anglagard, posted 06-07-2006 11:48 PM jar has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2013
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 10 of 210 (318951)
06-07-2006 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by jar
06-07-2006 11:37 PM


So people who believe in the literal and inerrent word of the Bible literally believe in something that does not exist?

Had my suspicions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 06-07-2006 11:37 PM jar has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 10838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 11 of 210 (318968)
06-08-2006 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Teets_Creationist
06-07-2006 10:10 PM


While there are people who insist that the KJV is special (beyond any claims to literary merit), such a view really can't be rationally justified. It's not as if God is restricted to especially blessing one particular translation. As I understand it, technically, the KJV is not the best of translations, more modern translations had access to ancient texts discovered since the KJV was written - and are easier to understand because they are written in more modern English.

I agree with the people here who say that using an English translation for the particular analysis you chooose is highly questionable. What if the choice were an arbitrary or stylistic choice made by the translator or translators ? Or if the Hebrew used more than two words ? The difference you are trying to find is to subtle to be reliably detected in translations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Teets_Creationist, posted 06-07-2006 10:10 PM Teets_Creationist has not yet responded

    
Teets_Creationist
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 210 (318969)
06-08-2006 3:07 AM


To answer you all:

ramoss: Why would would the KJV bible be relavent at all?? I would think the original hebrew is much more relavent, as well as the beliefs about cosmology, and the culture of the time it was written down.

Many if not most of the English versions we see floating around the Christian realm today were influenced by the KJV Bible anyway. Such as the NIV, Living Bible, New KJV, and others. So any literalist should say that the KJV Bible is the literal preserved Word of God. I prefer to use the KJV because some of these other versions omit verses from it and what not. If you want to get through to a literalist, then you have to understand what they actually believe. Preservation is key to a literal Bible, once you understand that belief, than you can understand how literalists can take the KJV Bible, well, literally.

Jar: It's too bad that there isn't a single original manuscript for any of the Bible. Guess we will never know what it said.

Preservation means that I don't even have to look at originals. It means that I believe that God used men to keep His Word alive, and in our hands. Inspiration of God to write the originals also is key.

Anglagard: So people who believe in the literal and inerrent word of the Bible literally believe in something that does not exist?

I have 3 KJV Bibles that I believe to be the inspired and preserved Word of God. One in my home, one in my car, one at my church. Yeah, it exists! :D

PaulK: If you're using a modern English version, then chances are, the KJV should be special to you anyway. Many of the English versions were greatly influenced by the KJV.


Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 06-08-2006 3:17 AM Teets_Creationist has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 10838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 13 of 210 (318970)
06-08-2006 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Teets_Creationist
06-08-2006 3:07 AM


The KJV had an influence, but that's purely literary. The fact is that there are no rational grounds for considering the KJV more accurate than the best modern translations (the NASB is the one I usually refer to). The fact that the language is sometimes difficult to understand makes it an even worse choice.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Teets_Creationist, posted 06-08-2006 3:07 AM Teets_Creationist has not yet responded

    
Teets_Creationist
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 210 (318973)
06-08-2006 3:38 AM


Paul, you're turning this into a Bible versions debate. The point is, if it's in the KJV Bible, then your English version was no doubt influenced by it, so that if you discredit the KJV, then you have to discredit your own version. Maybe you do, so far you haven't said wether you believe in a literal Bible or not anyway. I'm not here to say that my versions better than yours, I am here to show why we can believe in a literal Bible, it just happens to be that I use the KJV.
Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 06-08-2006 5:12 AM Teets_Creationist has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 10838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 15 of 210 (318978)
06-08-2006 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Teets_Creationist
06-08-2006 3:38 AM


Why can't I say that the more modern translations can be at least as accurate and easier to understand than the KJV ?

And can you explain why we should be using a translation for this discussion when we are talking about subtle differences that cannot be reliably discerned in even the best possible translation ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Teets_Creationist, posted 06-08-2006 3:38 AM Teets_Creationist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Teets_Creationist, posted 06-08-2006 5:22 AM PaulK has responded

    
1
23456
...
14NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014