Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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:   Adam was created on the 3rd day
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 46 of 233 (337715)
08-03-2006 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by purpledawn
08-03-2006 10:25 AM


Re: Two Different Authors
PD,
It appears that your documentary hypothesis would support my theory. An example was given where two different flood stories were woven together, just as I did with the two creation stories. And in doing so, the "contradictions" seem to disapear.
Even though the Genesis 1 story is said to be a later date than the Genesis 2 story, nothing in your hypothesis suggests that one was referencing the other. Why can't both stories be devinely inspired of God?
Just because one story is not written to support the other and each having there own purpose does not make it ok for them to contradict each other. They can't both be right if there is a contradiction. I believe both are inspired.
What you are missing from what I've provided is that since Genesis 1 is a later priestly writing, the priest (inspired by God) listed man as created on the 6th day.
Just the priestly writing is inspired?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by purpledawn, posted 08-03-2006 10:25 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by purpledawn, posted 08-03-2006 2:15 PM graft2vine has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 47 of 233 (337723)
08-03-2006 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by graft2vine
08-03-2006 1:00 PM


Re: seeing God
graft2vine writes:
God is visible and yet He is not, its all in the eye of the beholder.
My point exactly. If people can "see" God, whether literally or figuratively ("spiritually"), then the image/likeness distinction becomes irrelevant.
But lets say that the Eiffel Tower was actually created on the sixth day. Because it is not mentioned, would that somehow make it not exist?
We're not talking about existence - we're talking about timeline.
You're claiming, in effect, that the Eiffel Tower was created on the sixth (or third) day, even though there is no documentation. I'm saying that the documentation does say it was built in 1887. You are contradicting the documentation.
The earth was created for man, so yes God thought about it beforehand.
There are two separate (off)topics there: "Was the earth created for man?" and "Does God have to plan ahead?". I'm not going to address either of those questions here - nor am I going to concede that your answers are correct.
Did God not mention creating man until the 6th day or was it creating man in God's image?
Genesis doesn't mention man at all before day six, whether in God's image, in anybody else's image or in no image at all. It says that on day six God decided to create man. He could hardly decide to create something that had already been created.
(I'll mention the thread on "created" versus "formed" one more time. Genesis 1 doesn't say that God "converted" man to His own image.)
The first mention of God creating man as a living soul is not in Genesis 1, but in 2:
"In His image" impies " a living soul". God's image and living soul are the only distinctions mentioned between us and the other animals.
Man was made as a living soul which is consistant with the creation of every other living thing.
Are you saying that all living things are living souls? That would be another topic and certainly will not be taken as a given here.
Nowhere in scripture is a reference to the "first man" or "first Adam" being made in the image of God.
But the first reference to man does say that he was made in the image if God:
quote:
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness....
If man is so important that the entire world was made for him (your claim - not mine), then why was his day-three "creation" not even mentioned?

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 45 by graft2vine, posted 08-03-2006 1:00 PM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by graft2vine, posted 08-03-2006 4:38 PM ringo has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 48 of 233 (337725)
08-03-2006 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by graft2vine
08-03-2006 1:41 PM


Re: Two Different Authors
quote:
Even though the Genesis 1 story is said to be a later date than the Genesis 2 story, nothing in your hypothesis suggests that one was referencing the other.
Fine, let's say the priest never heard the Garden of Eden story and God inspired him to write the creation timeline from scratch. God would surely know the Eden story. He still had man created on day 6 and no mention of Eden.
quote:
Why can't both stories be devinely inspired of God?
I didn't say they weren't both inspired. Again they were inspired for different purposes. The later one was inspired to share the creation timeline. The older one just dealt with man's creation, no timeline given.
quote:
Just because one story is not written to support the other and each having there own purpose does not make it ok for them to contradict each other. They can't both be right if there is a contradiction. I believe both are inspired.
I didn't said they contradicted each other. They are both right for their purpose and their time.
Your theory contradicts them.
quote:
What you are missing from what I've provided is that since Genesis 1 is a later priestly writing, the priest (inspired by God) listed man as created on the 6th day.
Just the priestly writing is inspired?
Again, didn't say that. You're still missing the point.
Edited by purpledawn, : Typo

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by graft2vine, posted 08-03-2006 1:41 PM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by graft2vine, posted 08-03-2006 4:58 PM purpledawn has replied

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 49 of 233 (337764)
08-03-2006 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by ringo
08-03-2006 2:04 PM


Ringo,
Are you saying that all living things are living souls?
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
The word "creature" is nephesh. It is the same word that is normally translated as soul. Anything that lives and breathes is a soul. Adam being stated as a living soul did not mean he was in God's image, unless whales are also in God's image?
But the first reference to man does say that he was made in the image if God:
Reference order has nothing to do with the actual order of events.
If man is so important that the entire world was made for him (your claim - not mine), then why was his day-three "creation" not even mentioned?
The entire world was made for and given to the second man, not the first.
Jhn 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by ringo, posted 08-03-2006 2:04 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by ringo, posted 08-03-2006 5:14 PM graft2vine has replied

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 50 of 233 (337771)
08-03-2006 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by purpledawn
08-03-2006 2:15 PM


Re: Two Different Authors
PD,
I didn't said they contradicted each other. They are both right for their purpose and their time.
Alright, you have two different authors looking at an event from two different perspectives and for two different purposes. One may document certain parts in more detail our leave things out that the other might not. It's still the same event even though they are for different purposes. If the order of certain key events are not the same then they can't both be right!
The only way they could be both right is if they are not acually the same part of an event, but only appear to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by purpledawn, posted 08-03-2006 2:15 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by purpledawn, posted 08-03-2006 7:29 PM graft2vine has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 51 of 233 (337777)
08-03-2006 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by graft2vine
08-03-2006 4:38 PM


graft2vine writes:
Anything that lives and breathes is a soul.
You'll get no argument from me on that - but I can't speak for anybody else.
Adam being stated as a living soul did not mean he was in God's image, unless whales are also in God's image?
According to the Whale Bible they are. Humans are hardly mentioned.
Reference order has nothing to do with the actual order of events.
Sure it does, if you have no other time-standard to work from. You're claiming the reference order is wrong without even proposing an alternative time-standard.
-------------
I asked:
quote:
If man is so important that the entire world was made for him (your claim - not mine), then why was his day-three "creation" not even mentioned?
to which you replied:
The entire world was made for and given to the second man, not the first.
Jhn 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
The "Son" in John 3:35 is Jesus, of course - i.e. the entire world was made for Jesus, not Adam. So what has that got to do with the question?
I'll ask it again: If man (Adam) is so important, then why was his day-three "creation" not even mentioned?
Edited by Ringo, : Speeling.

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 49 by graft2vine, posted 08-03-2006 4:38 PM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by graft2vine, posted 08-04-2006 6:10 PM ringo has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 52 of 233 (337810)
08-03-2006 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by graft2vine
08-03-2006 4:58 PM


Re: Two Different Authors
quote:
If the order of certain key events are not the same then they can't both be right!
Sure they can. One is a timeline and one is not. Neither of them put Adam's creation on the 3rd day.
quote:
The only way they could be both right is if they are not acually the same part of an event, but only appear to be.
No that's not the only way they could both be right.
As I've said before, neither one supports your theory that Adam was created on day 3.
What in Genesis supports your theory?
ABE: As you said in Message 49
Reference order has nothing to do with the actual order of events.
As I said above. One is a timeline and one isn't. The Garden of Eden story isn't written as a specific timeline, just a generalization. The main point of the story is man, not the creation timeline.
So both can be right or their purpose.
Edited by purpledawn, : Added thought.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by graft2vine, posted 08-03-2006 4:58 PM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by graft2vine, posted 08-04-2006 6:28 PM purpledawn has replied

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 53 of 233 (337968)
08-04-2006 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by ringo
08-03-2006 5:14 PM


Ringo,
If man (Adam) is so important, then why was his day-three "creation" not even mentioned?
I think we are going around in circles: http://EvC Forum: Adam was created on the 3rd day -->EvC Forum: Adam was created on the 3rd day
The completed man on day 6 was good, made in the image of God (Christ).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ringo, posted 08-03-2006 5:14 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by ringo, posted 08-04-2006 6:18 PM graft2vine has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 54 of 233 (337970)
08-04-2006 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by graft2vine
08-04-2006 6:10 PM


graft2vine writes:
I think we are going around in circles:
Well, I keep asking the same question because you haven't answered it: Why is Adam's day-three "creation" not mentioned in Genesis 1? How do you explain that your theory is a blatant contradiction of Genesis 1?
The completed man on day 6 was good, made in the image of God (Christ).
Now you're bringing Christ into the equation without explaining.
Please go much, much, much, much slower.
Don't just quote forty verses and then link back to them. Explain what you mean - one step at a time.
Edited by Ringo, : Capitalization.

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 53 by graft2vine, posted 08-04-2006 6:10 PM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by graft2vine, posted 08-04-2006 7:26 PM ringo has replied

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 55 of 233 (337973)
08-04-2006 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by purpledawn
08-03-2006 7:29 PM


Re: Two Different Authors
PD,
The Garden of Eden story isn't written as a specific timeline, just a generalization. The main point of the story is man, not the creation timeline.
I think I get what your saying now! Your saying that the order of events in Genesis 1 is correct. The author in Genesis 2 however documented it in a different order because man was his focus and therefore is mentioned first.
Thanks PD, I can accept that theory as possible without invalidating my theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by purpledawn, posted 08-03-2006 7:29 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by purpledawn, posted 08-06-2006 7:29 AM graft2vine has not replied

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 56 of 233 (337988)
08-04-2006 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by ringo
08-04-2006 6:18 PM


Hi Ringo,
Why is Adam's day-three "creation" not mentioned in Genesis 1? How do you explain that your theory is a blatant contradiction of Genesis 1?
I don't have a lot of time right now to do a detailed study, but maybe will later. I am going to end this discussion for now as I consider the possibility of both theories as stated to PD. But, as support for my theory in a nutshell:
Genesis 1 is the order of the completion of the creation events, often indicated by the words "and it was good". Could that be the purpose of it? Adam was not complete on day 3 and therefore not mentioned on day 3. I gave reference in the NT where it says "our completeness is in Christ". Christ is the image of God, and we therefore are not made in God's image until we are in Christ.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by ringo, posted 08-04-2006 6:18 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by ringo, posted 08-04-2006 7:46 PM graft2vine has not replied
 Message 58 by jar, posted 08-04-2006 7:55 PM graft2vine has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 57 of 233 (337990)
08-04-2006 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by graft2vine
08-04-2006 7:26 PM


graft2vine writes:
Adam was not complete on day 3 and therefore not mentioned on day 3.
The problem with that view is that, according to Genesis 1, man was not created at all until day six. It doesn't say he was "completed" on day six. It says he was "created" on day six.
You seem to be ignoring what Genesis 1 plainly says in an attempt to reconcile it with Genesis 2.
Christ is the image of God, and we therefore are not made in God's image until we are in Christ.
That is a spiritual lesson which you are deriving from the text. I have said that I have no particular problem with the lesson you are trying to draw. But it is not explicitly in the text and this forum is about the text.
The text says that man - i.e. us, not Christ - was created in God's image. It says nothing about completeness or incompleteness.
If this was the Faith and Belief Forum, you'd be okay. But here the emphasis is on Bible Accuracy and Inerrancy.
You can not demonstrate the Bible's accuracy by making up theories that are not in the Bible - even if the spiritual implications may be valid. And you can not demonstrate the inerrancy of the Bible by making up theories that flatly contradict the Bible.

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 56 by graft2vine, posted 08-04-2006 7:26 PM graft2vine has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 58 of 233 (337992)
08-04-2006 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by graft2vine
08-04-2006 7:26 PM


I know you really like your 3rd. day scenario, but there is a far easier explanation for the differences in the two stories and why both were included.
The story in Genesis 2 is a much earlier one and shows a whole different view of God as seen by the peoples of the time. The God of Genesis 2 is a very personal, humanistic God, kinda bumbling, can make errors, doesn't really know what it is he is doing, but personal. He walks with the life created, talks with them, is very much like other Gods of other peoples of the area and time, a hands on God, a God in human form.
The God of Genesis 1 though is quite different. There we find a transcendent God, one who is precise and simply brings things into existance in a step by step, ordered manner. This later tale is far more sophisticated and the God far more a universal God than the humanistic hands on guy in Gen 1.
The people who put the stories in Genesis together were intellegent folk. They could see the discrepancies as easily as anyone today, yet they included both and did not try to resolve the differences.
We must ask why?
It's likely that the two stories were kept intact and included as separate stories because they depict two different aspects of GOD, the transcendent universal God as well as the intimate personal God.
They also helped explain other things as well, why we take one day out of seven off, why child birth is painful for humans where it seems so much easier among other critters, why we fear snakes, why humans have to till the land unlike other critters that just forage.
Edited by jar, : -t+d

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by graft2vine, posted 08-04-2006 7:26 PM graft2vine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Buzsaw, posted 08-04-2006 10:14 PM jar has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 233 (338021)
08-04-2006 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by jar
08-04-2006 7:55 PM


Re: Gen 1, 2, Dating
jar writes:
The story in Genesis 2 is a much earlier one and shows a whole different view of God as seen by the peoples of the time. The God of Genesis 2 is a very personal, humanistic God, kinda bumbling, can make errors, doesn't really know what it is he is doing, but personal. He walks with the life created, talks with them, is very much like other Gods of other peoples of the area and time, a hands on God, a God in human form.
'
What's your evidence that Gen 2 is much earlier and how much earlier?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by jar, posted 08-04-2006 7:55 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by jar, posted 08-04-2006 10:43 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 60 of 233 (338025)
08-04-2006 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Buzsaw
08-04-2006 10:14 PM


Re: Gen 1, 2, Dating
We don't know how much earlier since it is likely that both stories were transmitted orally for a long time before being committed to writing. Genesis 1 is among the Priestly Source so somewhere around 600-500BC, post exile. Genesis 2 (actually starting at Gen 2.4 IIRC) is considered to be one of the J Source documents. For example different names for GOD are used in the two accounts.
They are not simply parallel accounts of the same point of view. The two accounts represent two entirely different viewpoints and so were kept separate to emphasize the two aspects of GOD.
As we read further into Genesis we find examples where the two sources were merged, Genesis is a mix of J, E and P source, Exodus 6-7 is a mix of P and J and Exodus 12-14 is a hodgepodge of P, J and E.
So the redactors were working with multiple sources and in this one case, the Creation stories, decided it was important enough to keep the two tales separate and unique and not just merge various accounts together as they did in the stories about the Flood or Exodus.
I think they made the right decision. GOD is both Personal and Transcendant and the two characteristics, as well as the other lessons, needed to be emphasized.
Basically the J (Jerusalem or Javist) source is from the southern kindom of Judah and probably dates back as far as 900BC or even earlier. The E (Elohist or Ephraimitic) source is also an early one from about the same time but of a northern Israel origin and uses Elohim as the name of GOD until around Exodus 3 when the Tetragrammaton was revealed to Moshe.
The D source is of course Deuteronomy (and may include books like Ruth that was likely politically and socially motivated).
The latest and most recent was the P source which as I said probably dates from 600BC or even more recently.
Edited by jar, : fix apawling spawlin

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Buzsaw, posted 08-04-2006 10:14 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Buzsaw, posted 08-04-2006 11:50 PM jar 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