Genesis 1 and 2: The Difference Between Created and Formed

why is the relation specific about adam coming before plants and animals, in direct contradiction to the chronology?as i pointed out in the previous thread, animals in particular are created because adam is lonely. adam has to exist, for him to be alone -- the story does not have god saying "well, i know adam WILL be lonely after i create him." it has adam being lonely, god creating animals and bringing them to adam, adam judges them all as unsuitable, and then god creates woman.and in regards to plants, it literally says (in the original...) adam was created before plants.

---

yes and no. while the earliest biblical hebrew texts use a different script, the language itself (iirc) is the same.

---

What is really funny is just what that says about God. He created them, male and female he created them.Then it comes to Adam. Adam is lonely, it was not good for him to be alone. But God seems to have forgotten what he had done with all the other critters, male and female he created them. Instead he bring a gnu, and rino, and tiger and likely a gorilla or two for Adam to judge if they make a suitable companion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

the stories make very little sense next to each other, don't they?the really weird part is that later in the same story -- cain and abel -- we get a hint or two that there are other people around, even though "eve" is the one whose name means "causes all life."Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic WarningEdited by AdminPD, : Removed Warning

---

No they don't. But the people who compiled the stories were not stupid, they too could see the incongruities, yet they included the two mutually exclusive stories. They also placed the newer story first, the older later. The made no attempt to combine them, or make them fit together like they did with the flood myths.So why? Why include both stories?There are several possibilites. One is that they were important to to different sects, and so for political reasons both were included.Another though is that they two stories illustrate two entirely different facets. In Genesis 1 we see a remote and sophisticated God, one that creates and then stands back, an overarching God, one that transcends creation. It also teaches us about the Sabbath.The story in Genesis 2 and later we see a different facet. The God of Genesis 2 is personal, direct and hands on. Where the God of Genesis 1 is transcendant, the God of Genesis 2 is personal and intimate.Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic WarningEdited by AdminPD, : Removed Warning

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Please give the verse and the evidence for this, or repeat it if necessary. Thanks.Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic WarningEdited by AdminPD, : Removal of Warning

There is no inconsistency, but just one account. It is common to include more details in describing events. No big deal.Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic WarningEdited by AdminPD, : Removed Warning

Well, then could you explain the inconsitancies that were specifically mentioned, such as the order of creation, which days the specific creatures were created on , etc etc etc.Just declaring there are no inconsistancies is really not valid when there are specific points that people have shown to be inconsistant.
Unless, of course, you just want to go into denial.Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic WarningEdited by AdminPD, : Removed Warning

As I said in Message 21, the OP is very specific about what is being discussed. Please try to stay within the confines of the topic.

​

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.

​

This is not a continuation of reconciling Genesis 1 and 2.

​

Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
If anyone responds in this thread they will receive a 24 hour timeout.

​

Thank you
Edited by AdminPD, : Quote Box AddedEdited by AdminPD, : Title Change

As I asked in Message 36 please point me to where you proved this.

Probably Gen 2:4 through 2:7 all read as the same sentence.

quote:

---

4 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, 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. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

---

Edited by LinearAq, : Added Bible Quote

sorry, i wasn't ignoring you to be evasive, i was ignoring you because adminpd said to drop it. but i'll post it anyways, since it might really be on topic afterall.a posted the original hebrew (and partial translation) in message 175 of the other thread. just for further clarification, here is the complete verse, again.

quote:

---

— — , ‘‘: ‘, —-- . — , ‘, —-‘ , : — —, —-, , —‘ -.

​

eleh toldot ha-shamim v'ha-eretz: b'(ha?)-baram: b'yom asot yahueh elohim -- eretz v'shamim v'kol shich-ha-shadeh, terem yehayah b'eretz, v'kol eshab-ha-shadeh terem yetsmach: ki lo hamatir yahueh elohim al-ha-eretz, v'adam ain, l'abad et-ha-adamah

​

these (are) "origns" the-skies and-the-ground when-created, in-day made (pl/fm?) yahweh god -- ground and-skies and-every plant-wild, before it-was in-ground, and-every herb-wild before it-grew: because no watered yahweh god on-the-ground, and-man(kind) none, to-till (d.o.)-the-soil.

​

these are the origins of the skies and the ground when they were created
when the lord god made -- ground and skies,
and every wild plant before it was in the ground,
and every wild herb before it had grown,
because the lord god had not brought rain on the earth
and there was no man to till the soil.

---

the important point here is that there are no plants because there is no man. that much should be obvious, i hope. it's what the text says, even in english. the next few verses go on to describe man being formed:

quote:

---

— -

​

v'yatsar yahueh elohim et-ha-adam

​

and the lord god formed the man...

---

and then god making plants:

quote:

---

—, -, —-

​

v'yatsmach yahueh elohim, men-ha-adamah, kol-etz...

​

and the lord god made every tree [...] grow from the soil...

---

with the implication that because there is man (and water), god can now make those plants.i must admit though, this is a bit of a counfounding text for me. and a lot of the point against the op (not the above claim) is a bit more subtle, and relies on the implications and connotations of the way hebrew grammar works. for instance, if i meant to say "before they were in the ground" with implication of prior existance and movement, i'd probably say — ‘ (lefnay b'eretz) or "prior to [being] in the ground." but use of is rare, and often (not always) implies that we are talking about existance. it's a word that's commonly left out, unless it's important or specifically talking the past (never the present). saying ‘ (terem yahayah b'eretz) implies that you mean "before they existed, in the ground."but i'm even not fully sure how some of these form sentances, thought the above is my best guess. there are still some bits i can't make sense of, like why the "made" in the second half of verse four is plural and female.i will provide an alternate viewpoint, from my copy of the chumash's heavy footnotes.

quote:

---

5. was yet in the earth ... had yet sprung up. This was the position after the six days. Although they were brought forth on the third day (cf. i. IIf), they were still on the surface of the earth and needed the watering of the mist to make them grow (Rashi). Nachmanides explains more simply: On the third day they were indeed created with their form and stature; but they could not be further planted or sown, and they could not grow anew until the mist ascended.

---

there are a number of problems with this view. the two opinions, of course, do not agree. are the plants seeds? or fully grown? the other problem is in genesis 1. for rashi, what does "brought forth" mean, if not "grew?" and for nachmanides, how to explain the presence of plants that are not yet in the ground?further, it fails to explain why animals are apparently created twice. yes, i checked, my footnotes are mysteriously silent on the matter. and in this part of genesis, they take up half the page or more. the other half split between hebrew and english, so really, twice as much commentary as verse for any single reference. yet no reason for animals being created again.so there's no good, consistent explanation for plants being createdthere is a bit of commentary in it that pertains directly to the op, so i will post that as a separate entry,

---

There's nothing there to suggest that Adam was created before the plants were.

actually, that's totally irrelevent. nearly every sentance in the hebrew bible starts with a vav "and-" and punctuation was a relatively recent addition.it's an odd point of trivia that the longest run-on sentance in existance is the old testament.

---

(from my chumash)

quote:

---

2. [...] which God in creating had made. (The literal translation is 'which God created to do' or 'make'.) The work which was still 'to do' on the seventh day was done on the sixth day (Rashi). Ibn Ezra comments: the work which God had created with the power to reproduce ('to make') itself. Nachmanides holds that bara 'created' always refers to creatio ex nihilo and asah 'made' to the shaping of existing matter, and accordingly renders: 'He rested from all His work (i.e. matter) which God had created (ex nihilo) to make' (from it the things which were made in the six days). (This accords with the view that everything was potentially created on the first day.)

---

again, there are a number of problems with this view. genesis 1 fails to describe such creation ex-nihilo. but that's a subject of MANY debates here. but the other problem is that while many hold ‘ (bara) to describe ex-nihilo, it's hard to find agreement on the others.for instance, from what does god "make" the sun, the moon, and the stars? from what does god "make" man, in genesis 1? god says in one verse, let us "make" (asah) man, and in the next verse, god "creates" (bara) man. earlier in the chapter, god "creates" (bara) the great sea serpents (or "whales"). why when the fish and animals are not made ex-nihilo?indeed, even the op agrees that ‘ and are obviously synonyms. (yatsar) is clearly the one that means "formed" and implies a physical shaping process.but they are, however, used as synonyms:

quote:

---

Isa 43:7

​

for I have created (baratiu) him for my glory,
I have formed (yatsartiu) him;
yea, I have made (asitiu) him.

---

i see no reason to read it has god going through a two-step process to make the world, first creating the matter and then shaping it. genesis 2 simply uses a more personal, physical word.

---