Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 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 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

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 17 of 210 (318980)
06-08-2006 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Teets_Creationist
06-08-2006 5:22 AM


quote:
Besides, I haven't seen any language but English on this site anyway
No one of the members speaks hebrew and might want to use the original terms rather than their translations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Teets_Creationist, posted 06-08-2006 5:22 AM Teets_Creationist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by arachnophilia, posted 06-08-2006 8:58 AM CK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 18 of 210 (318983)
06-08-2006 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Teets_Creationist
06-08-2006 5:22 AM


quote:
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.
That doesn't have anything to do with what I said and it isn't true. Just because a translation follows the KJV at one point (say, because of the literary influence) doesn't mean that it can't be more accurate at another point.
As for the idea that all translations are inerrant I guess you haven't seen any of the rants by the KJV-only crowd.
quote:
I haven't seen any language but English on this site anyway, so any complaints about using a Bible in our language are silly.
Most discussions don't try to look at such subtle differences. Generally the differences aren't important enough that we need to do the extra work (although there is considerable reference to Hebrew and even Greek in discussion of Isaiah 7:14). In this case it is silly not to at least refer to the Hebrew.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Teets_Creationist, posted 06-08-2006 5:22 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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 20 of 210 (318993)
06-08-2006 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Teets_Creationist
06-08-2006 5:57 AM


quote:
People ARE using subtle differences
Remember that we are talking about subtle differences in word choice. Something that has to be checked against the original language, to tell if it is the choice of the original author or the choice of the translator.
quote:
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.
That's neither subtle nor the sort of difference that actually requires referring to the original language. The only reason you'd need to refer to the original language in that case is if you were alleging an error in translation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Teets_Creationist, posted 06-08-2006 5:57 AM Teets_Creationist has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 21 of 210 (318994)
06-08-2006 7:08 AM


Warning - Off Topic
Attention All,
This is the Bible Study Forum and the originator was very specific in Message 1 as to what is being discussed: The difference between the English words created and formed.
This is not a discussion about what translation is best or if a translation influenced others.
Please address the arguments presented in Message 1.
Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
Thank you
Edited by AdminPD, : Bold

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 22 of 210 (319016)
06-08-2006 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
06-07-2006 11:33 PM


post retracted
added by edit: sorry pd, saw the message after the post.
Most literalists I'm aware of, including myself, believe that the Bible is word-for-word exact only in the originals.
do you believe that the originals still exist? what do you consider "the originals," exactly? the earliest complete form of the old testament as it is now, and the earliest complete form of the new testament as it is now? or the first incarnations of texts that make it up? or the individual source documents prior to being editted together, in the case of genesis/exodus/numbers?
i don't mean any form of attack here, i'm just curious.
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.
i do think the kjv is a pretty good translation -- if you can get over the language issue. but it has other problems, too, as does every other translation. and the point you make is a good one: the bible has to be in the vernacular of the time and place, or people miss the message.
Edited by arachnophilia, : post retracted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 06-07-2006 11:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 23 of 210 (319020)
06-08-2006 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by CK
06-08-2006 5:25 AM


quote:
Besides, I haven't seen any language but English on this site anyway
No one of the members speaks hebrew and might want to use the original terms rather than their translations.
you mean me? i don't actually speak hebrew (fluently) but i do know a little. but i have run into two (former?) members that did speak hebrew. one was fairly new and from israel, and the other was amlodhi.
anyways, i'm not sure the hebrew would say anything the english doesn't, because the translation of to "created," to "formed," and to "made," is fairly strictly literal and consistent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by CK, posted 06-08-2006 5:25 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by CK, posted 06-08-2006 9:06 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 24 of 210 (319022)
06-08-2006 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by arachnophilia
06-08-2006 8:58 AM


opps! clearly I've been over impressed by your skills
my apologies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by arachnophilia, posted 06-08-2006 8:58 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by arachnophilia, posted 06-08-2006 9:28 AM CK has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 25 of 210 (319027)
06-08-2006 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Teets_Creationist
06-07-2006 7:51 PM


synonyms, even in the kjv
quote:
Isa 43:7
Even every one that is called by my name:
for I have created him for my glory,
I have formed him;
yea, I have made him.
quote:
Isa 45:18
For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens;
God himself that formed the earth and made it;
he hath established it, he created it not in vain,
he formed it to be inhabited:
"I am the LORD; and there is none else."
quote:
Psa 95:5
The sea is his, and he made it:
and his hands formed the dry land.
quote:
Isa 27:11
When the boughs thereof are withered, they shall be broken off:
the women come, and set them on fire:
for it is a people of no understanding:
therefore he that made them will not have mercy on them,
and he that formed them will shew them no favour.
quote:
Isa 44:2
Thus saith the LORD that made thee,
and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee;
Fear not, O Jacob, my servant;
and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.
quote:
Isa 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness:
I make peace, and create evil:
I the LORD do all these things.
although not in hebrew, since you're concerned with english:
quote:
Rom 9:20
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
one has to understand the structure of hebrew poetry. one line often repeats the next, in very similar (synonymous) wording. the isaiah verse about evil is an especially good example. "light" and "good" are clearly being associated, yet look at the verbs. "make" and "form" also mean the same thing, and HAVE TO mean the same thing.
Indeed, something else is happening, the earth and everything that was MADE in Chapter 1, is now being FORMED in Chapter 2.
this is an incredibly contortionist way to read the text. how do you make something, and then form it? you can make the raw materials, and then form something out of the materials, but that's not what's happening here. in genesis 2, the material god uses to make man is the ground.
but there's an even bigger problem with your idea.
quote:
Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
god makes woman, not "forms" woman.
Remeber, "the earth was without form; and void". CREATED covers the "void" problem, and, obviously, FORMED covers the "without form" problem.
there's another problem here. nowhere in genesis does it say that god "formed" the earth. so if "created" covers the void problem, and "formed" covers the without form problem -- where does the earth acquire form? secondly,
quote:
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void;
this is one sentance. what's further is that god does not "create" the earth in genesis 1, unless you're considering the first verse to mean that. and if so, that happens before "the void problem" and not after.
No controversey here, unless you want to take the Bible out of context, in a non-literal way.
on the contrary, it is because we're reading it in a very literal way. i think you will find that i am often the most literal person in biblical debates here. i have no porblem, however, with the contradiction because i understand the context. not just the textual, but the historical and social context as well.
Notice the first five verses are an account of what was created in the first chapter.
no, the first 3 and a half verses are the end of chapter 1. the chapters should split here:
quote:
Gen 2:4 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,
try reading it that way, read from genesis 1:1 to the first half of 2:4, stop, go get a snack, and come back and read the second half of genesis 2:4, to the end of the chapter 2 (or 3, or 4). it really makes a lot more sense that way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Teets_Creationist, posted 06-07-2006 7:51 PM Teets_Creationist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Chuteleach, posted 08-18-2006 1:47 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 26 of 210 (319028)
06-08-2006 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by CK
06-08-2006 9:06 AM


opps! clearly I've been over impressed by your skills
my apologies.
no problem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by CK, posted 06-08-2006 9:06 AM CK has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 27 of 210 (319388)
06-08-2006 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
06-07-2006 11:33 PM


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.
Doesn't this statement prove that it is impossible to be a literalists?
Or at least be a literarlist, and be in unison with other literalists?
To Teet's
From Message 1"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,"
I think this is an excellent point. Why give an account of what just happened, and then contradict yourself? (no doubt someone will reply, because the bible is wrong here) But maybe it's not wrong, maybe we are reading it wrong. After all how do you generalize creation in a few paragraph's? Surely some facts are left out, and we only need to know certain things, in order to find God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 06-07-2006 11:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 06-10-2006 11:21 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 210 (319448)
06-09-2006 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Teets_Creationist
06-07-2006 7:51 PM


quote:
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.
So at this point we have a formless "man"? Yet, it claims that God created him in His image. Is God's image one without form? If so, then modern humans are not the image of God.
quote:
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.
Gen 2:7 -- 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.
So, when God was talking to the newly created (yet formless) man and woman--telling them to "multiply and replenish the earth"--He was talking to a formless, and non-living creature? If man wasn't fully alive until Gen 2:7, then His creation is not finished. If His creation is not finished, then He has rested on the Seventh Day--because He claims He was finished--, yet, He wasn't done, clearly.
Do you not realize that your arguement is far too picky and pointless? The story begins to make even less sense when reading into each and every word.
quote:
Gen 2:18 -- And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. (19) And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air...
Why is God planning on making "an help meet for him [man]" if God has already made the creatures. What God really needs to do is just form them, right? Yet He clearly indicates that He plans to make them. And after He makes that plan, He then forms them.
Do you see once again how you're ripping the meaning down until it doesn't exist. It's quite clear from this passage that "make" and "form" are the SAME! And if they're not, God is planning on doing something that He's already done. A wee forgetful for the Almighty, wouldn't you say?
Trék

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Teets_Creationist, posted 06-07-2006 7:51 PM Teets_Creationist has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 29 of 210 (320314)
06-10-2006 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by riVeRraT
06-08-2006 11:28 PM


The account in Genesis 1 is the chronology of Creation. The account in Genesis 2 is not about the chronology of Creation at all. The Creation story is over, summed up in fact at the beginning of chapter 2, in "these are the generations . . . The account here is about specifics of Adam's relation to the Creation, beginning with the plants.
About literalism, the text doesn't have to be word-for-word exact in the target languages to be the word of God. As I said, it is the MEANING that is the point. You don't get exact word-for-word from one language to another, but a good translator aims for accurate conveyance of the meaning of the text. Good Bible teachers study the original languages to arrive at their own assessment of the given translation's success at conveying the meaning.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by riVeRraT, posted 06-08-2006 11:28 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by riVeRraT, posted 06-10-2006 11:32 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 31 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2006 11:35 PM Faith has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 30 of 210 (320321)
06-10-2006 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
06-10-2006 11:21 PM


Good Bible teachers study the original languages to arrive at their own assessment of the given translation's success at conveying the meaning.
We don't have the original language.
Also to translate it, you need to know exactly how things where in those days. We do not have all the facts of how things were then, so there is bound to be errors in certain translations. That's why I think it is impossible to be a literalist, for those 2 reasons.
This does not take away from the importance of the bible. I think it is more important to find God, and be in touch with the Holy Spirit, and let it help you in life, instead of relying on translations of texts, you get real time input for real time situations, if you remember to focus on God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 06-10-2006 11:21 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2006 11:37 PM riVeRraT 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