Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
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 Bible, King James Version 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 replied
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 06-07-2006 9:36 PM Teets_Creationist has replied
 Message 25 by arachnophilia, posted 06-08-2006 9:28 AM Teets_Creationist has not replied
 Message 28 by Jon, posted 06-09-2006 5:39 AM Teets_Creationist has not replied
 Message 129 by Philip, posted 07-14-2006 12:07 PM Teets_Creationist has not replied

  
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


EvC Forum: What's Best Reconciliation of Gen 1 and 2 You've Heard?
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 replied

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

  
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!
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 replied

  
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 replied

  
Teets_Creationist
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 210 (318979)
06-08-2006 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by PaulK
06-08-2006 5:12 AM


First, I never said that you couldn't hold your opinion that other versions are easier to understand and as accurate as the KJV. What I said was, that if you think that you're English version is accurate, and it was influenced by the KJV, then you have to take the KJV as accurate also. So me using it shouldn't be an issue. I'm not downplaying your version at all. In fact, I fealt you were implying that the KJV might be less reliable. Maybe I'm mistaken by that.
I think that there's not a problem to use the KJV for a literal interpretation of the word of God. Besides, I haven't seen any language but English on this site anyway, so any complaints about using a Bible in our language are silly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 06-08-2006 5:12 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by CK, posted 06-08-2006 5:25 AM Teets_Creationist has not replied
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 06-08-2006 5:48 AM Teets_Creationist has not replied

  
Teets_Creationist
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 210 (318984)
06-08-2006 5:57 AM


Paul, the subtle differences that you are saying I shouldn't use, are just as subtle as the differences that people are using to refute a literal Bible. People ARE using subtle differences. The whole concept that Gen. 1 and 2 are contradictory is based on the subtle difference that in the second chapter, when it overlaps the creation story, it changes the order in which it mentions man and beast. Click on the link I provided earlier if you want to see the original thread I was responding to.

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 06-08-2006 7:03 AM Teets_Creationist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024