Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 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:   Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 181 of 607 (562271)
05-27-2010 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by ICANT
05-26-2010 3:18 PM


Two Earths? - "Do you agree that the KJV Bible says what it says? Yes/No"
ICANT originally writes:
quote:
I am approaching these two stories as written in the KJV Bible as the absolute truth.
I am affirming what is said in the KJV Bible
Nothing matters except what is written in the KJV Bible as that is all that I am affirming in this thread
Do you agree that the KJV Bible says what it says? Yes/No
ICANT about the KJV bible now writes:
This word is translated 2 times (out of 72 times of use in Genesis) as was. Genesis 1:2 and Genesis 3:1
I have no excuse for the translators translating this word was. It in no way means something in the past tense.
So basically you agree that my two earths affirmation is just as valid as your interpretation of what is actually written in the KJV bible. But now you want to move the goalposts by claiming that the KJV bible is a poor translation in the areas on which my affirmation depends .
Do you agree that the KJV Bible says what it says? Yes/No
ICANT writes:
I have no excuse for the translators translating this word was. It in no way means something in the past tense.
Well I don’t claim to know anything about Hebrew at all but a cursory search for this term on the internet revealed that this word is most commonly translated as was. The fact remains that your silly two human creations affirmation is no more or less valid than my own silly two earths interpretation.
All of which just goes to show the folly of taking these myths literally, reading too much into the specifics of any interpretation or treating any of it as some sort of ultimate guide to truth.
ICANT writes:
I am not trying to prove it to be right or wrong only what the KJV Bible has recorded in it.
Now if what I am saying is wrong why don't you take my verse by verse examination of the text and refute it. Not what you think I said but what the text actually says.
You can’t refute my two earths affirmation based only on what the KJV bible has recorded in it either. Instead you have to move the goalposts and deny that the word in question has been translated correctly and in doing so you refute your own premise that what the KJV bible has recorded in it is the absolute truth.
Do you agree that the KJV Bible says what it says? Yes/No
Edited by Straggler, : Spelling
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by ICANT, posted 05-26-2010 3:18 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by ICANT, posted 05-27-2010 4:51 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 182 of 607 (562272)
05-27-2010 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by ICANT
05-26-2010 4:13 PM


Re: Do you care to Debate the Affirmed?
ICANT writes:
Why do scientist perform experiments?
Because as a means of investigating the world such methods have been found to be significantly more reliable than deeply subjective interpretations of ancient myths.
I am not trying to prove it to be right or wrong only what the KJV Bible has recorded in it.
And as you have acknowledged the text as actually written solely in the KJV bible supports my two earths affirmation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by ICANT, posted 05-26-2010 4:13 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 183 of 607 (562273)
05-27-2010 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Peg
05-26-2010 8:47 PM


Re: Do you care to Debate the Affirmed?
Hi Peg,
Peg writes:
why is the KJV the authority?
That is what is set in the Op as the limit of discussion along with the Hebrew text and the LXX.
Those texts are to be the final authority concerning this thread.
I am affirming there is a creation story in Genesis 1:2-27. This story took place some 6000+ years ago.
I am affirming there is a creation story in Genesis 2:4-25 that claims to be the history of the events that took place in the day the Lord God created the heaven and the earth. This story took place in the beginning.
Peg writes:
Im sorry, im deliberatly not commenting further on most of your post only because we keep going over and over the same points.
I don't blame you if I was you and did not have an answer I would try to change the subject from what is stated in the OP.
Peg writes:
i think you get the picture. All hebrew names had a meaning and just because Adam means 'mankind' does not mean that he was not an individual called by this name.
To set the record straight Adam does not mean mankind.
The word adam is the translation of the Hebrew word which means man or mankind.
You do understand that transliteration is substituting the English letter for the corresponding Hebrew letter don't you.
Peg writes:
Even the christians refered to him as the first man and the one who introduced sin into the world.
I believe that the first man who was formed from the dust of the earth before any other life form, plant or flesh of any kind in the beginning, is responsible for mankind being already condemned as John tells us in:
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Peg writes:
Jesus said they were the ones created 'in the beginning'
Jesus did refer to the man and woman created in the beginning when talking about marriage and He also quoted what the man said when God brought the woman he had made from his rib, concerning her being bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh in Genesis 2:24.
Peg writes:
quite a contrast.
Jesus was talking about the man and woman created in the beginning.
The beginning took place in Genesis 1:1.
Genesis 2:4 says it is the history of the day God created the heaven and the earth.
The man that was formed from the dust of the earth and the woman formed from his rib took place in this day.
The people who were created in Genesis 1:27 was not created in the same day as the heaven and the earth was created.
They were created on what is called day six in Genesis 1:27 a long time after the beginning which took place in Genesis 1:1.
Peg writes:
ICANT writes:
How can the account of what happened in the beginning be an explanation of what happened 6,000+ years ago?
Its not.
The earth was created 'in the beginning' which was during the time God also made the heavens/universe.
So you agree that the heavens and the earth was created in the beginning. Good.
The history of the day of that beginning is found in Genesis 2:4-24.
In that history is a story of the creation of man, a garden, vegetation, creatures, and a woman, in that order.
You say this is the story of mankind that was created in Genesis 1:27.
I ask again how can events that took place in the beginning be an explanation of what happened in Genesis 1:27 which was the sixth day of a story that began in 1:2?
Peg writes:
6,000 odd years ago was when he created the first man and planted the garden.
There is no scripture that supports this assertion.
The man and woman created in Genesis 1:27 was never placed in a garden nor were they forbidden to eat fruit of any tree. In fact they were told they could eat from all trees.
That alone eliminates these people and the man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 being the same people.
Peg writes:
But before that time was the preparation of the earth, the creation of the atmospher, seas, land, seasons, animals, vegetation....they all happened in the previous 6 days. Toward the very end of the 6th day Adam was created and then Eve as the very final creation.
Before what time?
Peg writes:
As i said, we view the 'evening and morning' as a figurative 'evening and morning'
You got a mouse in your pocket you are referring to as we?
My New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures has no footnotes or explanations in it that tells me this is figuratively and not literally.
Peg writes:
In Gen 2, all six days are called ONE day. So it cant be anything but figurative.
Where does Genesis 2:4 claim to be a record of what took place in the six days you refer to?
It simply says it is the history of the day God created the heaven and the earth.
The heaven and the earth existed at Genesis 1:2.
Therefore it is not addressing anything that took place from Genesis 1:2 which God designated as evening.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Peg, posted 05-26-2010 8:47 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Peg, posted 05-27-2010 7:22 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 184 of 607 (562275)
05-27-2010 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by purpledawn
05-27-2010 8:08 AM


Re: Do you care to Debate the Affirmed?
Hi PD,
purpledawn writes:
These aren't the same. For the first, all we have to do is read a KJV Bible We can see what is written. .
Not according to what has been posted in response to what I affirmed verse by verse throughout this thread.
Peg writes:
In the second, we have to understand what the writer was telling his audience to know what story is being told. Yes, we have to understand what it meant in their day, not ours
Why do we have to understand what the ancient audience understood the writer to mean, to be able to understand what is written in the KJV Bible?
All we have to know what story is being told is what is written in the KJV Bible.
Again I am not trying to prove this is correct or incorrect that would be another thread, to determine if the KJV was a correct interpretation of the texts available.
I have been presenting the same things I presented in this thread since I was 10 years old. I have been told by some of the best educated people in the world that I am crazy. I have been told I am too ignorant to understand what I am talking about. Most everybody that I have debated this issue with keeps telling me the story in Genesis 2:4 is an explanation of what took place in Genesis 1:2-27
What no one addresses is the differences in the two stories. They just want to put it in a blender and make one story out of it with no explanation for the differences. Just like I have encountered here.
What I am trying to do is settle in my mind did that 10 year old boy that first spoke of this know what he was talking about that he got from reading the KJV Bible. Or have I become so obsessed with the story after 60 years that I have lost all sight of objectivity and can not see what the text says.
That is the reason I would like for someone, anyone to take the verse by verse affirmations I made and refute them if possible. No one in 60 years has tried.
purpledawn writes:
This article is interesting and doesn't even bring up the P word. It has Moses as the author and shouldn't harm your belief system. Making Sense of Genesis 1
Pretty good article although I disagree with much of it. I did notice one thing.
He pointed out that most Bible scholars come to the study of Genesis 1 with preconceived ideas about what it says. That helps me a little as that 10 year old boy could not have had any preconceived ideas as the only thing he had ever heard preached was Jesus died for your sins and if you don't trust Him for salvation you will burn in hell for eternity.
That is about the limit of the preachers of the 40's with very little education to help them. In fact I was a fifth grade student at the time and all the preachers were 3rd grade or below.
The only thing I remember hearing about creation was some of them would say "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". As far as they were concerned that settled it.
purpledawn writes:
It hits on the same thing I've been saying, modern meanings don't help us understand an ancient writing. We have to try and understand what the audience would have understood in their time.
Well the KJV Bible was written in 16ll. I have a dictionary of that day of the words used in the KJV Bible. I do have an original 1611 KJV Bible.
Not only that I did study Hebrew in college so I did not have to take what somebody else said the original words said.
purpledawn writes:
It isn't a factual scientific account of the creation of the planet.
I actually believe that it is the actual story of creation and agrees with the scientific evidence available. But that is another thread.
The first thing I need to do is find out if the two stories are different. Then determine if the Bible is true. Then I could determine if it agrees with Science.
purpledawn writes:
They were written for ancient Hebrews to understand. So we have to figure out what the ancient Hebrews understood.
God is the same forever therefore the story written for the Hebrews was also written for us today.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by purpledawn, posted 05-27-2010 8:08 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-27-2010 3:49 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 191 by Peg, posted 05-27-2010 7:27 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 193 by purpledawn, posted 05-28-2010 9:57 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 201 by purpledawn, posted 05-30-2010 7:54 AM ICANT has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 607 (562277)
05-27-2010 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by ICANT
05-27-2010 3:36 PM


Why do we have to understand what the ancient audience understood the writer to mean, to be able to understand what is written in the KJV Bible?
Because otherwise you might think that when the ground was referred to as "earth" that it was talking about the entire planet as a whole. If you knew that they didn't have the concept of a planet then you'd realize that "earth" was instead referring to the ground and the story would make more sense and be truer to itself.
All we have to know what story is being told is what is written in the KJV Bible.
Wrong. This could easily lead you to some totally bullshit story, as we've seen.
That is the reason I would like for someone, anyone to take the verse by verse affirmations I made and refute them if possible. No one in 60 years has tried.
You've been refuted, ICANT. And I knew you'd act like this:
quote:
But of course you'd prefer it this way, for then when the ambiguity of a specific verse arrises, you can fall on your standard 'You're can believe what you want'.
Going verse by verse wouldn't allow either one of us to succeed, and then you feel like you can get away with claiming again that your version has never been refuted.Message 110
quote:
You're just making stuff up that you can shoehorn into what you think the words as presented mean. And you want us to try to argue against what the words are instead of what you are assuming they should be interpreted to mean. And then you're gonna keep claiming that your interpretation has not been refuted because your affirmation on what the words are have not been refuted.Message 163
We can see right through you, ICANT, and you're a dishonest person.
God is the same forever therefore the story written for the Hebrews was also written for us today.
He's not even the same between Gen1 and Gen2!!
Is there anything you're not wrong about!?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by ICANT, posted 05-27-2010 3:36 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 186 of 607 (562278)
05-27-2010 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by AZPaul3
05-27-2010 9:58 AM


Re: Do you care to Debate the Affirmed?
Hi Paul,
AZPaul3 writes:
I also believe his interpretation has a great deal of merit from a modern literalist stance. I say that he has succeeded in showing to his fellow literalists what a strict modern literalist interpretation of KJV could/should be.
Though I do not think this was ICANT's intention,
Thanks for the encouragement on me suceeding.
The problem is I don't know if I have suceeded in convincing the person that is most important to what is written in the KJV Bible is the best literal interpretation that can be. That person is me.
I been chewing on these passages for over 60 years and still have questions. That is why I keep trying to get someone to take the presentation verse by verse and refute what I presented.
As I have said it makes no difference whether it is true or false, a myth or whatever. Just is it what what is written in the text.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by AZPaul3, posted 05-27-2010 9:58 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Straggler, posted 05-27-2010 4:56 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 187 of 607 (562283)
05-27-2010 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Straggler
05-27-2010 12:26 PM


Re: Two Earths? - "Do you agree that the KJV Bible says what it says? Yes/No"
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes:
So basically you agree that my two earths affirmation is just as valid as your interpretation of what is actually written in the KJV bible. But now you want to move the goalposts by claiming that the KJV bible is a poor translation in the areas on which my affirmation depends .
Do you agree that the KJV Bible says what it says? Yes/No
Yes the KJV Bible says what it says.
But I left myself 2 outs by also specifying the LXX and the Hebrew texts.
I demonstrated from the Hebrew text that the earth in Genesis 1:1 had become formless and empty, as found in Genesis 1:2.
But even if it was instead of become it was still the same earth.
Which makes your two separate earth's refuted.
Straggler writes:
Well I don’t claim to know anything about Hebrew at all but a cursory search for this term on the internet revealed that this word is most commonly translated as was. The fact remains that your silly two human creations affirmation is no more or less valid than my own silly two earths interpretation.
Could you reference some of the places that make that statement as I can't find them.
Hayah is the Hebrew verb to be.
Then why was hayah only translated 2 out of 76 times used in 72 verses as 'was'?
Thanks for your disclosure of you lack of expertise in Hebrew.
Straggler writes:
All of which just goes to show the folly of taking these myths literally, reading too much into the specifics of any interpretation or treating any of it as some sort of ultimate guide to truth.
I don't care whether it is a lie or myth that is not the scope of this debate.
As I have said several times I am concerned with the story or stories in Genesis chapter 1 and 2.
I have affirmed that there is 2 stories 1 in Genesis 1:2-27 and another in Genesis 2:4-25.
Straggler writes:
You can’t refute my two earths affirmation based only on what the KJV bible has recorded in it either. Instead you have to move the goalposts and deny that the word in question has been translated correctly and in doing so you refute your own premise that what the KJV bible has recorded in it is the absolute truth.
The goalpoasts are in the same place they were in Message 1.
ICANT writes:
In this thread I will affirm that there are 2 creations presented in Genesis chapter 1 and 2.
In this thread the KJV, LXX and Hebrew text will be used.
So nope I did not move the goalposts.
Straggler writes:
Do you agree that the KJV Bible says what it says? Yes/No
Sure it does. The LXX says exactly what it says. The Hebrew text says exactly what it says.
It would be foolishness for me to argue Greek or Hebrew as no one would know what I was saying.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Straggler, posted 05-27-2010 12:26 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Straggler, posted 05-27-2010 5:14 PM ICANT has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 188 of 607 (562284)
05-27-2010 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by ICANT
05-27-2010 3:50 PM


Re: Do you care to Debate the Affirmed?
ICANT writes:
That is why I keep trying to get someone to take the presentation verse by verse and refute what I presented.
As I have said it makes no difference whether it is true or false, a myth or whatever. Just is it what what is written in the text.
And as I will keep pointing out - The KJV text as written verse by verse supports a two earths interpretation.
If you are going to say that the KJV bible contains errors of translation then you have contradicted the entire premise of your own thread - Namely that the two stories as presented in the KJV bible are the "absolute truth".
ICANT writes:
quote:
I am approaching these two stories as written in the KJV Bible as the absolute truth.
I am affirming what is said in the KJV Bible
Nothing matters except what is written in the KJV Bible as that is all that I am affirming in this thread
Do you agree that the KJV Bible says what it says? Yes/No
You can be vaguely forgiven for saying silly things in the science threads but this bible stuff is meant to be your specialist subject. Yet the bare minimum of analysis has shown you to be guilty of muddled thinking and contradictory nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by ICANT, posted 05-27-2010 3:50 PM ICANT has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 189 of 607 (562290)
05-27-2010 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by ICANT
05-27-2010 4:51 PM


Re: Two Earths? - "Do you agree that the KJV Bible says what it says? Yes/No"
So the KJV bible is the "absolute truth" but it contains human errors of translation and thus cannot be taken literally. Thus you have completely contradicted yourself.
ICANT writes:
quote:
I am approaching these two stories as written in the KJV Bible as the absolute truth.
I am affirming what is said in the KJV Bible
Nothing matters except what is written in the KJV Bible as that is all that I am affirming in this thread
Do you agree that the KJV Bible says what it says? Yes/No
But anyway moving on.
ICANT writes:
Could you reference some of the places that make that statement as I can't find them.
Hayah is the Hebrew verb to be.
Here "Hayah means "existed" or "was" in Hebrew; Hayah is the first-person singular imperfect form" or here Hayah means "existed" or "was" in Hebrew or here Hebrew grammar link quoted below
link writes:
In Hebrew, there is no verb for "to have." The words used to signify that "there was" or "there were" are:
Haya (masculine form)
Hayata (female form)
Hayo (plural form)
Read more at Suite101: Hebrew Grammar Made Easy: Simple Rules For Using "Yesh" in the Past Tense
Frankly I have no interest in debating Hebrew with you so I will leave it at that. But it should be obvious to all that you are being as selective in your translations as you are your interpretations of the "absolute truth" of the KJV bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by ICANT, posted 05-27-2010 4:51 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by ICANT, posted 05-31-2010 11:00 AM Straggler has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 190 of 607 (562307)
05-27-2010 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by ICANT
05-27-2010 1:37 PM


Re: Do you care to Debate the Affirmed?
ICANT writes:
Jesus was talking about the man and woman created in the beginning.
The beginning took place in Genesis 1:1.
Genesis 2:4 says it is the history of the day God created the heaven and the earth.
The man that was formed from the dust of the earth and the woman formed from his rib took place in this day.
this is exactly what i am saying....the man and woman created in the beginning in Chpt 1 is the same man and woman who you say were created in chpt 2
IOW, There is only one creation of man and woman according to Jesus, not two.
ICANT writes:
So you agree that the heavens and the earth was created in the beginning. Good.
The history of the day of that beginning is found in Genesis 2:4-24.
No its not. That account is about the creation of mankind specifically....Mosed left out the entire creation account because he had already given an overview of the creation of the 'heavens and earth' He didnt need to include those details about the process of preparing the earth for habitation becaues he had already done so.
ICANT writes:
Peg writes: "6,000 odd years ago was when he created the first man and planted the garden"
There is no scripture that supports this assertion.
Check your bible chronology. The bible gives us a timeline of significant events that lead us back to the creation of Adam in the year 4026bce.
Thats 6,035 years ago. The earth was created & prepared long before that time. Adam and Eve were created right toward the end of the 6th day.
ICANT writes:
The man and woman created in Genesis 1:27 was never placed in a garden nor were they forbidden to eat fruit of any tree. In fact they were told they could eat from all trees.
That alone eliminates these people and the man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 being the same people.
you are saying that because you think that there are two creations...but they are just one creation story being told in two different ways. In the first, Moses is briefly describing the preparation of the existing earth for habitation....he includes everything in the order that God created it.
but in the 2nd, he is describing more specifically what went on with the human creation...how mankind came to be in the condition they were in, how death entered the family, why mankind were divided and separated, how they became alientated from their creator.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by ICANT, posted 05-27-2010 1:37 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by ICANT, posted 05-31-2010 11:40 AM Peg has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 191 of 607 (562308)
05-27-2010 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by ICANT
05-27-2010 3:36 PM


Re: Do you care to Debate the Affirmed?
ICANT writes:
Most everybody that I have debated this issue with keeps telling me the story in Genesis 2:4 is an explanation of what took place in Genesis 1:2-27
What no one addresses is the differences in the two stories. They just want to put it in a blender and make one story out of it with no explanation for the differences. Just like I have encountered here.
i have said what the difference is several times now and it keeps flying over your head lol
One is the story earths preparation and the order of all created things, the 2nd is a detailed account of the mankind only. Moses didnt need to repeat himself about the animals and earthly creation....he needed to tell his audience why mankind was in the situation it was in....what God had originally purposed for them, why they are dying and what needs to happen to be redeemed from such a condition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by ICANT, posted 05-27-2010 3:36 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by ICANT, posted 05-31-2010 12:03 PM Peg has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 192 of 607 (562316)
05-27-2010 8:05 PM


Comparison of Gen 1 & 2
Hi ICANT,
You keep asking for a verse by verse comparison of the two accounts but its just not possible to give a verse by verse comparison because they are completely different. Perhaps this is why nobody has even attempted to do so. All I can point out is that Gen 1 ends with "and there came to be evening and morning a 6th day"
Gen 2 begins with
Thus the heavens and the earth and all their army came to their completion. 2And by the seventh day God came to the completion of his work that he had made, and he proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made. 3And God proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred, because on it he has been resting from all his work that God has created for the purpose of making. 4This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven
I believe vs 4 is a conclusion to everything moses had just written (gen 1-chpt 2:4) rather then the beginning of a new creative period because nowhere does the 7th day come to its end. Unlike the previous 6 days which all end with "and there came to be evening and morning" the 7th day does not come to such an ending so chpt 2 cannot be the beginning of a new creative period...otherwise moses would have used the same expression that he used for the previous 6 days.
In chpt 2:5 onward we see a detailed account only of man & womans creation. We do not see an 8th day or a new 'evening and morning' being spoken of. Even right at the end of the chpt there is no 'evening and morning' as the previous 6 days had. So it cannot be a new creation. If you believe God inspired the writing of genesis, then why would he suddently change the format?

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by ICANT, posted 05-31-2010 12:39 PM Peg has replied

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


Message 193 of 607 (562374)
05-28-2010 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by ICANT
05-27-2010 3:36 PM


Re: Do you care to Debate the Affirmed?
quote:
Why do we have to understand what the ancient audience understood the writer to mean, to be able to understand what is written in the KJV Bible?
OK, straight reading with modern understanding. In Genesis 1 the narrator tells us:
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
So the narrator is telling us that God first brought the sky and land into existence. That's all. Neither heaven nor earth are capitalized, therefore in modern reading heaven only refers to the the expanse of sky we see above our heads and earth only refers to the ground. Notice all these verses start with "and". (BTW, there is nothing in the first sentence that says the land was created to be inhabited.)
2 And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
The narrator goes on to tell us (And) that this ground that God brought into existence was without form and that the depths of the sea were dark and that the supernatural essence of God moved across the top of the waters.
3 And God said Let there be light and there was light.
The narrator tells us that God spoke light (illumination) into existence.
In 4, and God separates the light from the darkness.
In 5, and God calls the light portion "Day" and the dark portion "Night". Thus we have day and night and a solar day is born.
6 And God said Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters and let it divide the waters from the waters
Then God spoke a firmament into existence and put it in the middle of the waters. Firmament is the vault or arch of the sky.
In 7, the narrator tells us that (and) there are now waters above the arch and waters below the arch.
In 8, and God calls this arch, Heaven.
9 And God said Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place and let the dry land appear and it was so
So now God is gathering the waters under the arch into one place (not many places) so the dry land would appear.
In 10, God names the dry land, Earth, and the waters that have been gathered together in one place he called, Seas.
Now earth and heaven are capitalized in the KJV because they are written as names in the story. They refer to dry land and the arch per the story. Even in straight reading we take what the story says.
In 11, God had the ground start to grow plants.
14 And God said Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years
So in 14-18, God put lights in the arch. A big light, a little light, and twinkle lights.
20 And God said Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven
Then God creates fish and birds (20-22). The birds would fly above the ground (not the planet) in the open arch of the sky (not space).
24 And God said Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth after his kind and it was so
In 24-25, God creates the land critters.
In 26-27, God creates people.
In 29-30, God says that the birds, beasts and all that crawl on the land can eat plants for meat.
2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished and all the host of them
So now the arch and the land are finished, plus the multitude within.
Heaven was singular in 1:1 and the multitude wasn't included in 1:1.
Create the foundation, then decorate.
In 2:2-3, God ended his work on the seventh day and rested. He then blessed the day and set it aside for religious use.
2:4a These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created,
Now the narrator is going to tell us about the people God created. Generations deals with people.
2:4b-6 in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 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, But there went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.
The narrator is telling us that back when God made the earth and the sky, before anything was growing, and before man was around, God caused a misty rain.
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
God formed man from dust and blew into his nose. The man then came to life.
In 8, God planted a garden towards the east in Eden,where he placed the man.
In 9, God caused the plants to grow, plus the special tree of life and the tree of knowledge.
In 10-14, the narrator gives us a geography lesson.
2:15 And the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it
God places man in the garden, again; but this time to prepare it and manage it.
2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man saying Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die
God sets the boundaries of what the man can eat and over exaggerates a threat of death (as is common today) if disobeyed.
In 18, God realizes a man needs someone to help him tend the garden.
2:19-20 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them and whatsoever Adam called every living creature that was the name thereof, And Adam gave names to all cattle and to the fowl of the air and to every beast of the field but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him
Now God brings out the animals and birds for Adam to name and search for a helper. No helper suited his purpose.
In 2:21-22, we have major surgery and a rib is removed from Adam. Woman is made from bone and taken to Adam. Men from dirt and women from bone.
In 23, Adam accepts the woman and calls her woman.
In 24, the narrator states that a man will leave his family, stick with the woman and make a baby.
In 25, they are naked and not ashamed.
From a modern perspective, the stories don't have the same intent.
Genesis 1 is basic creation, building the base and then filling it. Mankind isn't the point of the story. God creating and resting is the point of the story.
Genesis 2 is about mankind and how they progress. The A&E story is still a just so story. The creation elements aren't the point of the story. The people are the point of the story.
Neither story is written as an actual event from a modern viewpoint.

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by ICANT, posted 05-27-2010 3:36 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Peg, posted 05-28-2010 5:50 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 211 by ICANT, posted 05-31-2010 5:21 PM purpledawn has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 194 of 607 (562430)
05-28-2010 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by purpledawn
05-28-2010 9:57 AM


Re: Do you care to Debate the Affirmed?
purpledawn writes:
OK, straight reading with modern understanding. In Genesis 1 the narrator tells us:
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
So the narrator is telling us that God first brought the sky and land into existence. That's all. Neither heaven nor earth are capitalized, therefore in modern reading heaven only refers to the the expanse of sky we see above our heads and earth only refers to the ground.
The 'earth' (erets) does not only mean 'land' in hebrew. The word ’adhamah′ is translated ground, soil, or land and its not the word used in genesis 1. Really, 'erets' is refering to the earth, as opposed to heaven, or sky therefore it should be read as the entire 'planet'.
Also, 'earth' cannot refer to the 'land' in verse 1 because as the following verses show, there was no land until day 3.
purpledawn writes:
2 And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
The narrator goes on to tell us (And) that this ground that God brought into existence was without form and that the depths of the sea were dark and that the supernatural essence of God moved across the top of the waters.
there is no ground spoken of in this verse...only waters are mentioned, otherwise known as the 'abyss' (emim). The entire planet was covered in water.
purpledawn writes:
From a modern perspective, the stories don't have the same intent.
Genesis 1 is basic creation, building the base and then filling it. Mankind isn't the point of the story. God creating and resting is the point of the story.
Genesis 2 is about mankind and how they progress. The A&E story is still a just so story. The creation elements aren't the point of the story. The people are the point of the story.
completely agree
purpledawn writes:
Neither story is written as an actual event from a modern viewpoint.
what is it about the story that proves it is not written to be viewed as an actual event?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by purpledawn, posted 05-28-2010 9:57 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by purpledawn, posted 05-28-2010 9:46 PM Peg has replied
 Message 212 by ICANT, posted 05-31-2010 5:27 PM Peg has not replied

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


Message 195 of 607 (562445)
05-28-2010 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Peg
05-28-2010 5:50 PM


Modern Language
quote:
The 'earth' (erets) does not only mean 'land' in hebrew. The word ’adhamah′ is translated ground, soil, or land and its not the word used in genesis 1. Really, 'erets' is refering to the earth, as opposed to heaven, or sky therefore it should be read as the entire 'planet'.
Sorry Peg, ICANT said modern natural reading as presented in the KJV. In English, the word earth only applies to the planet when it is capitalized. The KJV did not capitalize the word earth. Without the capitalization the word earth means soil, land, ground, or mortal life.
quote:
Also, 'earth' cannot refer to the 'land' in verse 1 because as the following verses show, there was no land until day 3.
Sure it can. That's how the story is written in KJV. Read it again. Land wasn't created on the third day. The waters were rearranged so the land was exposed. The land was created in 1:1.
1:9 And God said Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place and let the dry land appear and it was so
quote:
there is no ground spoken of in this verse...only waters are mentioned, otherwise known as the 'abyss' (emim). The entire planet was covered in water.
Read it again. "And the earth was without form. That's land.
quote:
what is it about the story that proves it is not written to be viewed as an actual event?
It's the thing you've been harping on in various threads. We know that the sun, moon, and stars take longer than a 24 hour day to manifest themselves.
We know the sun, moon, and stars aren't affixed in an arch in the sky between the waters.
Plants growing before the sun is situated and we know that birds and beasts eat more than just plants for food.
So from a modern viewpoint, it's a fictional story and not something to be taken as a factual event.
Genesis 2 is easy. Talking snake, magic trees, man made from dirt, and a woman built from bone. Obviously a fictional story.
ICANT set the parameters, not me.

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Peg, posted 05-28-2010 5:50 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Peg, posted 05-29-2010 5:11 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 213 by ICANT, posted 05-31-2010 5:31 PM purpledawn 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