Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,830 Year: 3,087/9,624 Month: 932/1,588 Week: 115/223 Day: 13/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2
Joseppi
Member (Idle past 4944 days)
Posts: 50
From: New Albany, In, USA
Joined: 08-23-2010


Message 68 of 295 (576245)
08-23-2010 12:50 PM


Chronology
Where in Genesis chapter two is there any chronological order presented, other than, what is demanded by the context of the chapter's narration?
The chapter begins by closing the discussion of chapter one and opening a new topic. The new topic is GENERATIONS of....
Which has nothing to do with chronological order as any requirement.
In chapter two there exists no terms implying chronology.
The word "AND" doesn't mean "AND THEN".
As some have said, the Bible isn't aimed at teaching science.
Instead the aim is teaching eternal truths.
However, there is nothing in the text to warrant any of the assumptions thus far displayed in this thread.
I list some of the assumptions that I noted.
a). That the narrator of Genesis two is not the same as the narrator of Genesis one.
b). That the chonology of chapter one extends throughout chapter two.
c). That the narrator is not God.
Edited by Joseppi, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by ringo, posted 08-23-2010 1:57 PM Joseppi has replied
 Message 70 by jar, posted 08-23-2010 2:13 PM Joseppi has replied
 Message 117 by kbertsche, posted 08-26-2010 2:48 PM Joseppi has replied

Joseppi
Member (Idle past 4944 days)
Posts: 50
From: New Albany, In, USA
Joined: 08-23-2010


Message 71 of 295 (576267)
08-23-2010 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by ringo
08-23-2010 1:57 PM


Re: Chronology
Ringo, You've got me backwards. I asked a question you didn't answer.
I claim no order whatsoever.
Chapter one's chronology is day by day until seven.
Chapter two has no chronology except what is forced by context.
My point being that the ASSUMPTION of a chronology in chapter two is merely assumed.
You said, "other than what the narration suggests". By this means you have presented the ASSUMPTION I was referring to.
You can show no cause for your suggestion of chronology other than bias beforehand.
Edited by Joseppi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by ringo, posted 08-23-2010 1:57 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by ringo, posted 08-23-2010 2:27 PM Joseppi has replied

Joseppi
Member (Idle past 4944 days)
Posts: 50
From: New Albany, In, USA
Joined: 08-23-2010


Message 72 of 295 (576268)
08-23-2010 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by jar
08-23-2010 2:13 PM


Re: Chronology
Jar,
Saying you didn't assume is what is silly.
For example, you apparently have assumed that the narrator is not God, correct?
But, the first verse of Genesis says...In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Therefore, only God can be the narrator.
For the same reason, your unpresented and unpresentable evidence can't refute the simple understanding that the narrator is God. Since, only God could have been rationally thought to haev been a witness of any of these events in both chapters.
What is clear to me however, is that your bias is your only actual evidence rather than anything rationally rationally determined from the actual text.
Edited by Joseppi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by jar, posted 08-23-2010 2:13 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by jar, posted 08-23-2010 3:17 PM Joseppi has replied

Joseppi
Member (Idle past 4944 days)
Posts: 50
From: New Albany, In, USA
Joined: 08-23-2010


Message 74 of 295 (576270)
08-23-2010 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by ringo
08-23-2010 2:27 PM


Re: Chronology
Ringo,
If you have no answer then admit it. why act like your assumptions are the rule?
YOU CAN NOT ESTABLISH ANY CHRONOLOGY THROUGHOUT CHAPTER TWO.
So, feel free to say...O yes I can but I don't have to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by ringo, posted 08-23-2010 2:27 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by ringo, posted 08-23-2010 2:47 PM Joseppi has replied

Joseppi
Member (Idle past 4944 days)
Posts: 50
From: New Albany, In, USA
Joined: 08-23-2010


Message 75 of 295 (576272)
08-23-2010 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by ringo
08-23-2010 2:27 PM


Re: Chronology
Ringo,
I didn't shoehorn anything. Assumption is apparently your natural characteristic.
My compelling reason is the absence of anything denoting chronology in chapter two. (However, there is one example of contextual based chronology)
Edited by Joseppi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by ringo, posted 08-23-2010 2:27 PM ringo has not replied

Joseppi
Member (Idle past 4944 days)
Posts: 50
From: New Albany, In, USA
Joined: 08-23-2010


Message 78 of 295 (576291)
08-23-2010 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ringo
08-23-2010 2:47 PM


Re: Chronology
Assumption of chronology in chapter one was never assumed by any rational person. It is defined by the terms used not by the whim of the reader.
When one reads the second chapter one easily notes that there is no assigned chronology. Instead, the subject of the generations is presented and the things important to understanding how and why are provided.
Once again I note that you provide no evidence of any correctness to your assumption.
And, the notion that assumptions are to be assumed is, of course, ludicrous. So, you and your assumed rule is for your buds alone. Me, I assume nothing.
Your Treasure Island contrast is an example of what I already informed you of...in case some didn't know..which is as it appeared from my reading of this thread...that is, that there is a contextual context forced by the context.
Your notion that the whole chapter has such a contextual force is not evident in the chapter at all. Which is why you don't present them, I suppose.
I don't assume anything.
The context of the narrative changed and the narrator told you what the new subject was. Disregarding what the text told you about the change in subject is what causes such simplistic errors in comprehension.
I am not looking for any reconciliationa at all. I am pointing out that the notion of a need for reconciliation is merely a not very well disguised red herring. The whole argument is bogus.
As with lawyers, when biased folks don't like what the truth is they start inventing things and hoping no one notices.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ringo, posted 08-23-2010 2:47 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 08-23-2010 6:23 PM Joseppi has replied

Joseppi
Member (Idle past 4944 days)
Posts: 50
From: New Albany, In, USA
Joined: 08-23-2010


Message 79 of 295 (576293)
08-23-2010 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by jar
08-23-2010 3:17 PM


Re: Chronology
Jar,
What you call nonsense is what you can't refute and so you assume an air of some kind of...superiority? I'm not impressed.
I view you as incapable of dealing with the task at hand and therefore, in being surrounded by your friends who have apparently allowed you to think you're something special your reasoning powers have devolved into pontification of your assumptions.
So, with the supposition that none of you have any actual logic or evidence to support your notions, but only some measure of vitriol, I will return tomorro to see if anyone has responded rationally.
And by rational I don't mean off topic opinions by certified opinionators.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by jar, posted 08-23-2010 3:17 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by jar, posted 08-23-2010 4:28 PM Joseppi has replied

Joseppi
Member (Idle past 4944 days)
Posts: 50
From: New Albany, In, USA
Joined: 08-23-2010


Message 85 of 295 (576440)
08-24-2010 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by jar
08-23-2010 4:28 PM


Re: what is a narrator
Jar,
Narrator was a bad choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by jar, posted 08-23-2010 4:28 PM jar has not replied

Joseppi
Member (Idle past 4944 days)
Posts: 50
From: New Albany, In, USA
Joined: 08-23-2010


Message 86 of 295 (576444)
08-24-2010 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by ringo
08-23-2010 6:23 PM


Re: Chronology
Ringo,
When I read chapter I find some chronology.
But, in many parts I find that only information is added so as to enhance the understanding of why God did as he did.
I can see why you think I assumed to disagree with you. However, I would put that I misunderstood your meaning.
It appeared to me that you were simply saying that chapter two must be assumed to be chronological.
What I don't think is right is, to not let the text speak for itself and/or to apply any bias to it.
Sorry, if I misunderstood your point.
Edited by Joseppi, : Better wording. I hope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 08-23-2010 6:23 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by ringo, posted 08-24-2010 11:27 AM Joseppi has replied

Joseppi
Member (Idle past 4944 days)
Posts: 50
From: New Albany, In, USA
Joined: 08-23-2010


Message 87 of 295 (576453)
08-24-2010 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by ICANT
08-23-2010 6:26 PM


Re: Still Inconsistent
ICANT,
You quoted this...Genesis 2:4 says the Heaven and the Earth was created in the day that the LORD God made the Earth and the Heavens.
And said....
quote:
So the Heaven and the Earth had to be created in the light period that ended with evening found in Genesis 1:2.
In my understanding the phrase "in the day" refers to the whole time period thus far presented.
One evidence of this is that verse one says God created the heaven and the earth. And in that verse heaven is singular.
And in verse eight the firmament is named Heaven. So at that point the there arises the plurality of heavens. I consider that Heaven to be the atmosphere of the earth.
Whereas, in verse fourteen of chapter one it says that...
Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, for days, and for years....
So, this other lower case heaven in verse fourteen is the next heaven beyond the atmosphere.
Again there is now a plurality of heavens brought about by the creation of firmament.
You proposed that Genesis 1-2 is part of one of the days of creation.
My understanding is that Genesis 1-2 is of unknown length in which no marking of time is denoted.
And that in the process of time God's Spirit moved on the face of the waters.
And after that time God turned on the light in the deep where the earth was under many waters not yet divided by firmament, and thus a part of the original heaven noted in verse one.
That the turning on of the light was the beginning of the first day.
I consider the days of creation week to be 24 hour periods since, they are limited by use of the common man's understanding of an "evening and a morning".
But, that this measure of time was not manifested till there were the firmament lights with which to do so.
I see no problem with God using the measure of a common twenty four hour day before there were lights available, because as with any designer the goal is in mind long before the design is seen by all.
I consider Heaven in verse eight to be capitalized to indicate that this earth is the ordained place where God is to dwell.
The capitalization denoting ownership.
Edited by Joseppi, : No reason given.
Edited by Joseppi, : Clarity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by ICANT, posted 08-23-2010 6:26 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Coragyps, posted 08-24-2010 8:01 AM Joseppi has replied
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 08-24-2010 9:11 PM Joseppi has replied

Joseppi
Member (Idle past 4944 days)
Posts: 50
From: New Albany, In, USA
Joined: 08-23-2010


Message 90 of 295 (576555)
08-24-2010 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Coragyps
08-24-2010 8:01 AM


Re: Still Inconsistent
Coragyps,
Then they had another means I would suspect.
Regardless, I don't read Hebrew and am not retranslating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Coragyps, posted 08-24-2010 8:01 AM Coragyps has not replied

Joseppi
Member (Idle past 4944 days)
Posts: 50
From: New Albany, In, USA
Joined: 08-23-2010


Message 91 of 295 (576563)
08-24-2010 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by ringo
08-24-2010 11:27 AM


Re: Chronology
Ringo,
I stated from the outset of my remarks that there is a chronological context forced in chapter two.
But, you are claiming the whole thing is.
So I suppose I need to give examples.
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breathe of life; and man became a living soul.
Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would name them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Now we know from the chapter one chronological order that the beasts were formed before Adam. But, in chapter two there is no chronological order stated. And the reason seems to be that Genesis 2:19 only mentions the forming of every beast of the field at that moment for the expressed purpose of highlighting Adam's consideration of each one. And that this information is needed only to teach that Adam became aware of the fact that God had not yet made him a help meet for him as all other living creatures had.
Genesis 2:21-22 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; and the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Note the first use of anesthetics and cloning.
Note that the genetics of man agrees that woman came from out of man.
Now, one might think that the woman was formed on day six. But, that would only be because one assumes that the forming of the woman is the moment of her creation. And the whole of the events wherein Adam names every beast of the field and recognizes his need can not be supposed to occur within any twenty four hour time frame of days having each one, "a evening and a morning".
But, when one realizes these events are not bound in chronological order but in the order required to teach. Then we can discern the deeper purpose.
For...
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, in the image of God created he them.
And thus we see that the woman was created at the same moment God created man but not yet given a bodily form.
But, God formed the woman 's body after Adam was well involved with Edenic matters.
So, creating is not forming.
In the same way that creating of all the plants was not the generating of them as chapter two, verse five informs us of.
This shows that the discussion in chapter two concerns informing us of the necessary facts and such so as to learn what God's intents were and why man responded as he did. Therefore, chronology is not stressed throughout the chapter.
Edited by Joseppi, : Clarity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by ringo, posted 08-24-2010 11:27 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by jar, posted 08-24-2010 2:39 PM Joseppi has replied
 Message 93 by ringo, posted 08-24-2010 2:51 PM Joseppi has replied
 Message 94 by Coragyps, posted 08-24-2010 3:29 PM Joseppi has replied

Joseppi
Member (Idle past 4944 days)
Posts: 50
From: New Albany, In, USA
Joined: 08-23-2010


Message 123 of 295 (577711)
08-30-2010 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by ICANT
08-24-2010 9:11 PM


Re: Still Inconsistent
quote:
According to the text "in the day" refers to the day the Lord God created the heaven and the earth.
  —ICANT
It doesn't say what you wrote here.
It reads instead....
Genesis 2:4 ...in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens....
In the first verse there was only one heaven created.
Heaven didn't become "heavens" until God created the firmament and called it Heaven.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 08-24-2010 9:11 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by ICANT, posted 08-30-2010 11:35 AM Joseppi has not replied

Joseppi
Member (Idle past 4944 days)
Posts: 50
From: New Albany, In, USA
Joined: 08-23-2010


Message 124 of 295 (577713)
08-30-2010 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by jar
08-24-2010 2:39 PM


Re: Chronology
quote:
Sure there is chronology in both. It is just that the two stories are mutually exclusive, they contradict each other.
They are two different stories written by two different cultures living in two different eras. They are NOT one story. In fact the evidence suggests that Genesis 2&3 is by far the older story, written hundreds if not thousands of years before Genesis 1.
  —jar
You offer nothing but opinion and nothing that corresponds with the text all can read.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by jar, posted 08-24-2010 2:39 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by jar, posted 08-30-2010 10:52 AM Joseppi has replied

Joseppi
Member (Idle past 4944 days)
Posts: 50
From: New Albany, In, USA
Joined: 08-23-2010


Message 125 of 295 (577716)
08-30-2010 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by ringo
08-24-2010 2:51 PM


Re: Chronology
quote:
ringo: That's where you're going wrong. You're assuming that the chapter one chronology is The True Chronology. In fact, it's just the chronology for chapter one. You're altering what chapter two says to fit your assumption about chapter one.
You didn't offer any example of anyone altering anything.
And the chronology of chapter one it is numbered day by day in the text.
quote:
ringo: I think the Hebrew scholars would disagree. There are threads somewhere about "created, formed and made" if you care to search for them. As I recall, the words are pretty much interchangeable.
The translation is clear and precise in English.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by ringo, posted 08-24-2010 2:51 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by ringo, posted 08-30-2010 11:56 AM Joseppi has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024