Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Adam was created on the 3rd day
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4954 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 106 of 233 (397422)
04-25-2007 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by ringo
04-25-2007 2:30 PM


ringo writes:
(As I have suggested earlier, the New Testament first/last Adam makes a nice sermon, but it's strictly after-the-fact. It was never meant to "explain" the original story. In any case, the "last Adam" doesn't refer to Genesis at all.)
That is your assertion thst the New Testament doesn't explain the creation story. Where did the last Adam come from? He had to be created at some point... when was he created? Why not during the creation in Genesis along with everything else that was created? God said the creation was finished on the sixth day and then He rested on the seventh.
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
The heavens and the earth were completed and everything that is in them. ...except for the second Adam???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by ringo, posted 04-25-2007 2:30 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by ringo, posted 04-25-2007 10:19 PM graft2vine has replied
 Message 114 by Reserve, posted 04-28-2007 8:06 AM graft2vine has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 107 of 233 (397428)
04-25-2007 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by graft2vine
04-25-2007 9:53 PM


graft2vine writes:
That is your assertion thst the New Testament doesn't explain the creation story.
No, it's my assertion that the New Testament doesn't rewrite the creation story.
Where did the last Adam come from? He had to be created at some point... when was he created?
Uh... the "last Adam" in Corinthians refers to Jesus. He represents a new beginning, a spiritual beginning as compared to the fleshly beginning represented by the "first Adam".
The "first Adam" also refers figuratively to all of us in our fleshly "old life" and the "last Adam" refers figuratively to us in our spiritual "new life".
I have no idea how you manage tp project any of that back to Genesis.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by graft2vine, posted 04-25-2007 9:53 PM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by graft2vine, posted 07-30-2007 4:37 PM ringo has replied

  
highskies
Junior Member (Idle past 6178 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 04-24-2007


Message 108 of 233 (397532)
04-26-2007 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by graft2vine
04-25-2007 9:30 PM


Re: tenses
Hi, graft2vine.
Thanks for the link. It had some good pointers.
But, I believe you fail to see the point I was trying to make.
There are only 2 obvious conclusions that most of us can come to regarding Gen 1 and Gen 2. Either Gen 2 takes place in Gen 1, or Gen 2 is an entirely new creation that takes place after God rests on the 7th day.
Since you say man was made on the 3rd day, I assume that you are taking the view that Gen 2 happens in Gen 1.
So if this is the case, we have to use Gen 1 to establish an order of events, then using Gen 2, put everything in the correct order as to fit the order of events in Gen 1. And this is what I mean by present, past and future tense.
OTOH, if we wanted to take the view that Gen 2 was a new creation apart from Gen 1, then there would be no problem determining what is taking place and when. Since we're trying to fit Gen 2 into the order of events of Gen 1, then we have to determine the order of events in Gen 1 first.
Let me give you a real quick rundown of something I see regarding Gen 1 and Gen 2.
Genesis 1:26 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.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Ok, what do we see in these 2 verses? Here's what I see. I see one man being made which God forms from the dust of the earth according to Gen 2:7.
I see God giving man dominion over all the animals over all the earth.
Then I see God making the woman out of the man(male and female created he them.)
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air( these were formed before man); and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field;(why was Adam naming animals besides looking for a help meet? Because God gave him(meaning mankind) dominion over them) but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from 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.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
And now we see that God blesses them and tells them to be fruitfull and multiply, because man is now male and female and can procreate.
Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
And now we can start to see why the serpent is more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.
The serpent wants to have dominion over man, yet God gave man the dominion over the serpent. And so the story continues
Edited by highskies, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by graft2vine, posted 04-25-2007 9:30 PM graft2vine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Garrett, posted 04-27-2007 5:38 PM highskies has not replied

  
Garrett
Member (Idle past 6165 days)
Posts: 111
From: Dallas, TX
Joined: 02-10-2006


Message 109 of 233 (397779)
04-27-2007 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by highskies
04-26-2007 11:48 AM


Re: tenses
Genesis 1 is an ordered list of events and Genesis 2 is a restatement of the creation account, in non-linear form emphasising key events. This was a common form of writing at the time. First state a ordered list, then discuss points more in-depth (not necessarily in order). There is no contradiction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by highskies, posted 04-26-2007 11:48 AM highskies has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Coragyps, posted 04-27-2007 5:41 PM Garrett has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 110 of 233 (397784)
04-27-2007 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Garrett
04-27-2007 5:38 PM


This was a common form of writing at the time.
Share some examples, please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Garrett, posted 04-27-2007 5:38 PM Garrett has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Garrett, posted 04-27-2007 5:55 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Garrett
Member (Idle past 6165 days)
Posts: 111
From: Dallas, TX
Joined: 02-10-2006


Message 111 of 233 (397789)
04-27-2007 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Coragyps
04-27-2007 5:41 PM


Well another easy one would be found in the Bible itself. Matthew's treatment of Christ's ministry is topical and not always in order, whereas Mark's record is chronological.
Gleason Archer observed that the “technique of recapitulation was widely practiced in ancient Semitic literature. The author would first introduce his account with a short statement summarizing the whole transaction, and then he would follow it up with a more detailed and circumstantial account when dealing with matters of special importance” (1964, p. 118).
In the case of Gen 1 vs. Gen 2 - Genesis 1 was a chronological account, and Genesis 2 was a non-linear topical account dealing with man and his environment.
This info is all widely available if one is truly interested in finding it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Coragyps, posted 04-27-2007 5:41 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by jar, posted 04-27-2007 6:30 PM Garrett has replied
 Message 136 by arachnophilia, posted 05-14-2007 2:12 AM Garrett has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 112 of 233 (397796)
04-27-2007 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Garrett
04-27-2007 5:55 PM


An irrelevant technique
Gleason Archer observed that the “technique of recapitulation was widely practiced in ancient Semitic literature. The author would first introduce his account with a short statement summarizing the whole transaction, and then he would follow it up with a more detailed and circumstantial account when dealing with matters of special importance” (1964, p. 118).
That of course is irrelevant when addressing either the Synoptic Gospels or the Genesis accounts. That is a description of a practice that one author might use when dealing with one subject. Neither the Synoptic Gospels or the Genesis myths though were written by one author.
It is particularly irrelevant when considering the Genesis myths since the creation story beginning in Genesis 1 and running through Genesis 2:4 is a far more recent, younger tale than the older ones that were combined into the tales beginning with Genesis 2:5.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Garrett, posted 04-27-2007 5:55 PM Garrett has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Garrett, posted 05-11-2007 3:13 PM jar has replied

  
Reserve
Junior Member (Idle past 6179 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 03-29-2007


Message 113 of 233 (397887)
04-28-2007 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by graft2vine
07-28-2006 7:28 PM


Adam was created on the 6th Day
Hello graft2vine, I did not read all 112 messages, but I just want to address your logic when you place man before plants were made.
First, the detailed creation account of what happened on each day is found in Genesis 1. This is a literal way of looking when reading Genesis in context.
quote:
23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day. ... 26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”...Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
In Genesis 1 it is VERY obvious God created man on the 6th day. And Gen 1 is definitely the written account of all created events whereas Gen 2 and other chapters focus more on what happened on the 6th day
Genesis 2 is written to describe what happened on the 6th day and focusses on man, which is the focus of God's creation.
God created plants and herbs, in the form of seeds on the third day (from genesis 1),
Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Here, if you take this into context with Genesis 1, we see that before every plant was in the earth means that before each grown plant had the roots in the earth... but wait, here comes the next statement..
quote:
and every herb of the field before it grew:
Here God describes the herbs (or seeds) before they grew, but God created them on the 3rd day. They are in the ground, but there was no man and there was no water to make them grow into the earth
After the rain, the first thing God did was create flesh man (of the earth). This was before any plants were created
As mentioned before, the rain was there to help seeds grow, not to water the ground where no seeds or plants are. Seeds were there before God watered the earth, and before God created man.
You, graft2ine, by saying man was created on the 3rd day FULLY disagrees with Genesis 1.
When put together, they complement one another... each filling in the details of the other.
Yes, Gen 1 and 2 compliment one another, but saying man was created on the 3rd day does not compliment Gen 1 nor is it written in Gen 2. I still do not understand why you chose the 3rd day, why not the 2nd or the 1st. Because why would God create man on a earth that is barren? Makes no sense, until you see that God placed man in the garden of Eden. Did God create man on the third day and then let him stand there until God created the garden of Eden, and just move Adam like a senseless pawn? No, God created man and placed him in the garden of Eden, for when God created man God created a fully human capable of thinknig etc... it would seem absurd to create him before anything else was created.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by graft2vine, posted 07-28-2006 7:28 PM graft2vine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by ringo, posted 04-28-2007 11:17 AM Reserve has not replied

  
Reserve
Junior Member (Idle past 6179 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 03-29-2007


Message 114 of 233 (397889)
04-28-2007 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by graft2vine
04-25-2007 9:53 PM


The last Adam created before everything
Read John 1
quote:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
The Word is with God and was God, this is the Christ, and everything was made because of Him. But His creation was before the earth and the heavens (stars and space). Before the creation account. So Christ is not described as a creation account. For Christ was always there. "He was in the beginning with God"
So to talk about Christ as a creation means He is not God. But He is.
For to say Christ has a beginning, then He no longer is eternal, and no longer God. But merely man, or some other form of creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by graft2vine, posted 04-25-2007 9:53 PM graft2vine has not replied

  
Reserve
Junior Member (Idle past 6179 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 03-29-2007


Message 115 of 233 (397890)
04-28-2007 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by arachnophilia
07-29-2006 1:43 AM


'yom' as a literal day in Genesis.
If you guys do not think 'yom' means a literal day in Genesis 1, then have a read through this
Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...
It fully discusses the history and context of the interpretations of Genesis 1.
Here is a piece from this paper:
quote:
Let us present the facts of the usage of the term ym, "day," in Genesis 1 as any scholar who knows Hebrew can describe them:
The term ym is always used in the singular.
The term ym is always joined to a numeral. In Genesis 1:5 it is a cardinal and elsewhere in Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 it is always an ordinal. We will pay attention to this below.
The term ym is never combined with a preposition, genitive combination, construct state, compound construction, or the like. It always appears as a plain noun.
The term ym is consistently defined by a temporal phrase in the preceding sentence, "and there was evening and there was morning." This clause serves in a defining function for the word "day."
The complementary creation account of Genesis 2:4-25 contains a non-literal, figurative meaning of the singular of the term ym, "day." When the non-literal meaning is intended the semantic-syntactical conventions known from the remainder of the Old Testament for such a meaning are employed. This is the case in the non-literal usage in Genesis 2:4.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by arachnophilia, posted 07-29-2006 1:43 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by arachnophilia, posted 04-29-2007 7:07 PM Reserve has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 116 of 233 (397926)
04-28-2007 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Reserve
04-28-2007 7:58 AM


Re: Adam was created on the 6th Day
Reserve writes:
Here God describes the herbs (or seeds) before they grew, but God created them on the 3rd day. They are in the ground, but there was no man and there was no water to make them grow into the earth
That doesn't work either. Genesis 1 says very plainly that the earth brought forth plants:
quote:
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
It sounds like He created them mature - already yelding seeds and fruit. Certainly, there is no possibility that they were just seeds in the ground.
(By the way, the "it didn't rain" scenario doesn't work either. The water cycle had to start as soon as there was water.)

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Reserve, posted 04-28-2007 7:58 AM Reserve has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by highskies, posted 04-28-2007 1:54 PM ringo has not replied

  
highskies
Junior Member (Idle past 6178 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 04-24-2007


Message 117 of 233 (397956)
04-28-2007 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by ringo
04-28-2007 11:17 AM


Re: Adam was created on the 6th Day
It sounds like He created them mature - already yelding seeds and fruit. Certainly, there is no
possibility that they were just seeds in the ground.
______________________________________________________________________
I fully agree. Since it's obvious that God formed man in a mature state and it's pretty safe to assume
that God formed the animals in a mature state also, it would then make no sense for God to put these
into an immature enviroment
Edited by highskies, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by ringo, posted 04-28-2007 11:17 AM ringo has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 118 of 233 (398212)
04-29-2007 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Reserve
04-28-2007 8:12 AM


Re: 'yom' as a literal day in Genesis.
If you guys do not think 'yom' means a literal day in Genesis 1, then have a read through this
Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...
i am aware of other interpretations. they are all flawed, for a number of reasons.
quote:
The term ym is always joined to a numeral. In Genesis 1:5 it is a cardinal and elsewhere in Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 it is always an ordinal. We will pay attention to this below.
the "yom+number" convention are actually the names of the days of the week in hebrew.
quote:
The term ym is consistently defined by a temporal phrase in the preceding sentence, "and there was evening and there was morning." This clause serves in a defining function for the word "day."
the text is specifically setting up the markers for the passage of time. it defines the hebrew day as starting at sundown (evening THEN morning) because darkness came before light. it then describes the week as having 7 days, starting with sunday, and ending with saturday (shabat). the chapter is about the division of time more than anything else. the days have to literal because this chapter is the etiological reasoning behind the origin of the hebrew work week.
quote:
The complementary creation account of Genesis 2:4-25 contains a non-literal, figurative meaning of the singular of the term ym, "day."
it's an idiomatic usage, which i described in the post you are responding to.
Edited by arachnophilia, : removed unnecessary quibble.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Reserve, posted 04-28-2007 8:12 AM Reserve has not replied

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4954 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 119 of 233 (399748)
05-07-2007 6:05 PM


All,
I have not had time to be here to answer all your questions recently, but plan to do so. For now I would like to attempt to again answer the prevailing question of why Adam is not mentioned as being created on the 3rd day in Genesis 1:
The creation of man (on the 3rd day) is a detail that is left out of Genesis 1 maybe for poetic purpose and/or keep it within a limited scope. God can't mention man being created on both the 3rd and 6th days without causing confusion if enough detail and explaination is not put into it. That is not within the scope of Genesis 1 which is intended as a very brief summary of the entire creation. Genesis 2 is devoted to man.
Make sense? Anything wrong with this logic?

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by ringo, posted 05-07-2007 6:29 PM graft2vine has not replied
 Message 121 by Coragyps, posted 05-07-2007 8:24 PM graft2vine has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 120 of 233 (399751)
05-07-2007 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by graft2vine
05-07-2007 6:05 PM


graft2vine writes:
Anything wrong with this logic?
At first glance, two rather spectacular flaws:
  1. You presume to know what was "intended" by the authors. The proper methodology would be to infer intent from what they wrote.
  2. The proposition, "X wasn't mentioned because __________," works for any value of X. You could say that Napoleon wasn't mentioned on Day 3 because God didn't want to confuse the Hebrews with French history.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by graft2vine, posted 05-07-2007 6:05 PM graft2vine 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