Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 196 of 607 (562487)
05-29-2010 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by purpledawn
05-28-2010 9:46 PM


Re: Modern Language
purpledawn writes:
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.
you can read any translation you like but if you take a word out of context then whats the point?
In this case, the hebrew word 'erets' is used. However, in Gen 3:23 the word adama is used and is translated as 'ground'. Incidently, this is where the name 'Adam' originates from also....because Adam was taken from the 'ground' he was named after the ground....the hebrew word being adamah.
So you can claim that erets means ground/land/dirt whatever you like, but if the facts show that the hebrew word for ground/land/dirt is actually something else, then you are plain and simply wrong.
purpledawn writes:
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.
No, the ERETS (earth) was created before the first day.
Moses doesnt mention the ADAMAH (ground) until Gen2:6 where it reads:
andhumidity he-is-ascending from theearth (erets) andhe-irrigated all-of surfaces-of theground (adamah)
The KJV makes this differentiation between the hebrew words for it reads:
But there went up a mist from the EARTH, and watered the whole face of the GROUND
So if you want to look at what the KJV is saying, then you'd have to acknowledge that it makes a clear distinction between 'earth' and 'ground'
purpledawn writes:
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.
correct. So rather then accept that this proves that the 'days' are longer then 24 hours (as the hebrew word can be defined) you simply disregard the entire account as ficticious?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by purpledawn, posted 05-28-2010 9:46 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by purpledawn, posted 05-29-2010 7:55 AM Peg has replied

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


Message 197 of 607 (562489)
05-29-2010 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Peg
05-29-2010 5:11 AM


Re: Modern Language
quote:
you can read any translation you like but if you take a word out of context then whats the point?
I'm working within ICANT's parameters. Nothing has been taken out of context. I'm reading the stories as they are presented in the KJV.
quote:
In this case, the hebrew word 'erets' is used. However, in Gen 3:23 the word adama is used and is translated as 'ground'. Incidently, this is where the name 'Adam' originates from also....because Adam was taken from the 'ground' he was named after the ground....the hebrew word being adamah.
So you can claim that erets means ground/land/dirt whatever you like, but if the facts show that the hebrew word for ground/land/dirt is actually something else, then you are plain and simply wrong.
I'm going by the English used in the KJV and the modern meanings of those words. Hebrew is irrelevant. The word earth is used and it is not capitalized. Verse 3:23 does not tell me how to read Genesis 1. Remember, the A&E saga is a different story than the Genesis 1 tale.
quote:
No, the ERETS (earth) was created before the first day.
Moses doesnt mention the ADAMAH (ground) until Gen2:6 where it reads:
andhumidity he-is-ascending from theearth (erets) andhe-irrigated all-of surfaces-of theground (adamah)
The KJV makes this differentiation between the hebrew words for it reads:
But there went up a mist from the EARTH, and watered the whole face of the GROUND
So if you want to look at what the KJV is saying, then you'd have to acknowledge that it makes a clear distinction between 'earth' and 'ground'
The words earth and ground are synonyms, but do have differences. Understand the differences between them and you'll see we don't need to make earth mean planet, which it doesn't since it isn't capitalized.
The mist came up from the land and watered the dirt or the mist came up from the ground and watered the ground. Any way we look at it the mist came up from the ground, land, soil and watered the ground, land, soil.
quote:
correct. So rather then accept that this proves that the 'days' are longer then 24 hours (as the hebrew word can be defined) you simply disregard the entire account as ficticious?
The Hebrew is irrelevant. In KJV English, it is written as a 24 hour day. You can't change that, although you're trying. In a modern understanding, it's fiction.

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 196 by Peg, posted 05-29-2010 5:11 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Peg, posted 05-29-2010 8:19 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 214 by ICANT, posted 05-31-2010 5:35 PM purpledawn has not replied

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


Message 198 of 607 (562491)
05-29-2010 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by purpledawn
05-29-2010 7:55 AM


Re: Modern Language
purpledawn writes:
I'm going by the English used in the KJV and the modern meanings of those words. Hebrew is irrelevant. The word earth is used and it is not capitalized. Verse 3:23 does not tell me how to read Genesis 1. Remember, the A&E saga is a different story than the Genesis 1 tale.
all you really need to know is how are the two words different.
Why is erets used and translated as 'earth' and why is 'adamah' used and translated as ground.
Your claim is that erets means ground. Even the KJV translators can see the difference because they translate adamah as ground.
What could be the difference between the ground and the earth?
purpledawn writes:
Understand the differences between them and you'll see we don't need to make earth mean planet, which it doesn't since it isn't capitalized.
Are you trying to tell me that in english, if earth is not capitalized, it means ground/dirt/land?
that is a crazy grammatical rule to place on the bible...or any other piece of writing. Here is a short exerpt from the 'extreme science' website....tell me why they are not capitalizing the word 'earth' in this article:
A Geologic History of Earth
In the very beginning of earth's history, this planet was a giant, red hot, roiling, boiling sea of molten rock - a magma ocean. The heat had been generated by the repeated high speed collisions of much smaller bodies of space rocks that continually clumped together as they collided to form this planet. As the collisions tapered off the earth began to cool, forming a thin crust on its surface. As the cooling continued, water vapor began to escape and condense in the earth's early atmosphere. Clouds formed and storms raged, raining more and more water down on the primitive earth, cooling the surface further until it was flooded with water, forming the seas.
Seriously purpledawn, some of these so called 'rules' you come up with appear to only be for the purpose of supporting your strange ideas lol.
Its as if you will bend over backwards in order to discredit the bible....anyway you can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by purpledawn, posted 05-29-2010 7:55 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by purpledawn, posted 05-29-2010 7:58 PM Peg has replied

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


Message 199 of 607 (562527)
05-29-2010 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Peg
05-29-2010 8:19 AM


Re: Modern Language
quote:
all you really need to know is how are the two words different.
Why is erets used and translated as 'earth' and why is 'adamah' used and translated as ground.
You're still not "listening". The difference is between earth and ground, not eretz and adamah. We're looking at modern English here, not ancient Hebrew.
quote:
Your claim is that erets means ground. Even the KJV translators can see the difference because they translate adamah as ground.
I'm not talking about eretz. I'm talking about the word earth. The English word "ground" is not part of Genesis 1 in the KJV.
Genesis 1:25
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind and cattle after their kind and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind and God saw that it was good
quote:
Are you trying to tell me that in english, if earth is not capitalized, it means ground/dirt/land?
Yes, that is the rule. As the name of the planet, the word earth would be a proper noun and therefore capitalized. I didn't make the rule, Peg. Or is it peg?
quote:
that is a crazy grammatical rule to place on the bible...or any other piece of writing. Here is a short exerpt from the 'extreme science' website....tell me why they are not capitalizing the word 'earth' in this article:
It is for anything written in English. As I've said many times, I didn't create the rules.
I have no way of knowing why the writer didn't capitalize the word earth when he was referring to the planet. He should have. A good editor would have corrected the mistake.
quote:
Seriously purpledawn, some of these so called 'rules' you come up with appear to only be for the purpose of supporting your strange ideas lol.
Its as if you will bend over backwards in order to discredit the bible....anyway you can.
I haven't done anything to discredit the stories in the Bible. I can't say the same for doctrines or traditions though.

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 198 by Peg, posted 05-29-2010 8:19 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Peg, posted 05-29-2010 11:08 PM purpledawn has replied

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


Message 200 of 607 (562532)
05-29-2010 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by purpledawn
05-29-2010 7:58 PM


Re: Modern Language
purpledawn writes:
You're still not "listening". The difference is between earth and ground, not eretz and adamah. We're looking at modern English here, not ancient Hebrew.
i do understand that, but how on earth is anyone going to understand the hebrew bible when they are reading it in a modern english context
its absurd.
purpledawn writes:
I'm not talking about eretz. I'm talking about the word earth. The English word "ground" is not part of Genesis 1 in the KJV.
thats exactly right.
Yet you still insist that earth does not mean planet but means 'ground' even though the hebrew word for ground is not employed in genesis 1. And the writer was not differentiating the erets between the land and sea but rather between the erets and sky.
In Msg 159 you said
pd msg 159 writes:
"The people at the time of Moses wouldn't envision the planet or space as we know it today. Words also gain meanings over time. The word "earth" doesn't mean planet and was not the name of the planet when Moses supposedly existed. If you go by the "book" it means dry land. Our planet is not all dry land. The author of Genesis 1:1 told his readers what eretz meant. It refers to dry land as opposed to the sea."
later you changed your tune and told ICANT in msg 174
pd msg 174 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."
then you go and spoil it by saying in msg 199
pd msg 199 writes:
"The difference is between earth and ground, not eretz and adamah. We're looking at modern English here, not ancient Hebrew."
decide on which stand you are taking and let me know because im terribly confused lol.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by purpledawn, posted 05-29-2010 7:58 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by purpledawn, posted 05-30-2010 10:39 AM Peg has replied

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


Message 201 of 607 (562539)
05-30-2010 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by ICANT
05-27-2010 3:36 PM


1611 Dictionary
quote:
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.
And that's why I expect better from you.
So is the dictionary actually dated 1611 or is it just a dictionary for the words used in the 1611 KJV?
Please share the meaning of earth from that dictionary.

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 not replied

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


Message 202 of 607 (562540)
05-30-2010 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Peg
05-29-2010 11:08 PM


Re: Modern Language
quote:
i do understand that, but how on earth is anyone going to understand the hebrew bible when they are reading it in a modern english context
its absurd.
I agree, but that is the parameters that ICANT set.
I don't know if these are the same definitions that ICANT has in his dictionary, but I found this KJV dictionary online. Given the information concerning the planet, this online dictionary isn't a transcription of an actual 1611 dictionary.
earth
Notice that definition 3 which refers to the planet does not have a Bible verse associated with it; but definition 6 does.
Dry land, opposed to the sea.
God called the dry land earth. Gen.1.
In definition 8 we have the meaning of ground.
8. The ground; the surface of the earth. He fell to the earth. The ark was lifted above the earth.
In the second month--was the earth dried. Gen.8.
Now we look at ground.
1. The surface of land or upper part of the earth, without reference to the materials which compose it. We apply ground to soil,sand or gravel indifferently, but never apply it to the whole mass of the earth or globe, nor to any portion of it when removed. We never say a shovel full or a load of ground. We say under ground, but not under earth; and we speak of the globe as divided into land and water, not into ground and water. Yet ground, earth and land are often used synonymously. We say, the produce or fruits of the ground, of the earth, or of land. The water overflows the low ground, or the low land.
There was not a man to till the ground. Gen.2.
quote:
Yet you still insist that earth does not mean planet but means 'ground' even though the hebrew word for ground is not employed in genesis 1. And the writer was not differentiating the erets between the land and sea but rather between the erets and sky.
Our English word earth does not carry a meaning of planet. (We have the word "planet" for that job.) The word earth eventually became the name of our planet about 1400CE. I can name my cat, Petunia, but that doesn't mean the word Petunia now means cat. It just refers to a specific cat with that name. When capitalized, the word earth refers to a specific planet with that name. Do you understand the difference between a name and a meaning.
As far as Message 159 and Message 179, I don't see that they disagree with each other. (Use the peek to see how I linked to these msgs. It is helpful for readers.)
You apparently missed the fact that I've changed my approach to fit the parameters set my ICANT.
In Message 184, ICANT wrote: 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?
So in Message 193, I changed my approach. That's why I wrote: OK, straight reading with modern understanding.
That's when you jumped in on Message 193 and apparently didn't pay attention to the change. If you don't want to discuss within those parameters, I suggest you address one of my earlier posts that did deal with understanding Genesis 1 and 2 from the viewpoint of their original audiences.
quote:
decide on which stand you are taking and let me know because im terribly confused lol.
Even with the change in approach, my stance hasn't changed.
Genesis 1 and 2 are separate stories with different purposes.
If you want to argue the issue concerning eretz and adamah then go to the appropriate thread. Not The Planet
It's really off topic here. This thread is more about creation as presented by Genesis 1 and 2.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Peg, posted 05-29-2010 11:08 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Peg, posted 05-30-2010 4:28 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 216 by ICANT, posted 05-31-2010 5:50 PM purpledawn has not replied

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


Message 203 of 607 (562558)
05-30-2010 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by purpledawn
05-30-2010 10:39 AM


Re: Modern Language
purpledawn writes:
Notice that definition 3 which refers to the planet does not have a Bible verse associated with it; but definition 6 does.
however, the outset of genesis says "God created the heavens and the earth" before thtere was any land creaed. So it is refering to the planet earth and not the dirt/ground of the earth.
purpledawn writes:
Our English word earth does not carry a meaning of planet.
your link does appear to mean the planet in its first and third definition.
KJV definition link from PD writes:
1. Earth, in its primary sense, signifies the particles which compose the mass of the globe
3. The terraqueous globe which we inhabit. The earth is nearly spherical, but a little flatted at the poles, and hence its figure is called an oblate spheroid. It is one of the primary planets, revolving round the sun in an orbit which is between those of Venus and Mars. It is nearly eight thousand miles in diameter, and twenty five thousand miles in circumference. Its distance from the sun is about ninety five millions of miles,and its annual revolution constitutes the year of 365 days, 5 hours, and nearly 49 minutes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by purpledawn, posted 05-30-2010 10:39 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by purpledawn, posted 05-31-2010 7:45 AM Peg has replied

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


Message 204 of 607 (562584)
05-31-2010 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Peg
05-30-2010 4:28 PM


Re: Modern Language
quote:
however, the outset of genesis says "God created the heavens and the earth" before thtere was any land creaed. So it is refering to the planet earth and not the dirt/ground of the earth.
Again, it wasn't capitalized. At the time of the King James Writing the common practice was to capitalize all proper nouns and nouns that referred to important people. Notice that it was capitalized when God named the dry land, Earth and the waters, Seas.
The author tells us the names that God gave various items in the story.
light is called Day
darkness is called Night
firmament is called Heaven
dry ground is called Earth
gathered water is called Seas
So according to the story, in Genesis 1:1 we have God creating the firmament and the dry ground.
Notice that God doesn't speak water into existence.
quote:
your link does appear to mean the planet in its first and third definition.
It is the name of our planet. It doesn't mean planet. Do you understand the difference?
Definition 1 looks at earth as an element.
1. Earth, in its primary sense, signifies the particles which compose the mass of the globe, but more particularly the particles which form the fine mold on the surface of the globe; or it denotes any indefinite mass or portion of that matter. We throw up earth with a spade or plow; we fill a pit or ditch with earth; we form a rampart with earth. This substance being considered, by ancient philosophers, as simple, was called an element; and in popular language, we still hear of the four elements, fire, air,earth, and water.
Air, earth, and water. Sounds familiar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Peg, posted 05-30-2010 4:28 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Peg, posted 05-31-2010 8:55 PM purpledawn has not replied

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


Message 205 of 607 (562599)
05-31-2010 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Straggler
05-27-2010 5:14 PM


Re: Two Earths? - "Do you agree that the KJV Bible says what it says? Yes/No"
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes:
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
Your first sourse says:
The name Hayah denotes God's potency in the immediate future, to be, exist, be present; happen, occur, take place: become, turn into, and is part of YHVH. The phrase "Hayah-'aher-Hayah" comes from the word Hayah
This source gives the definition of the name Hayah as, to be, exist, be present, happen, occur, take place, turn into.
Was is not part of this definition.
All of those mean something that comes to be or will come to be.
Which supports my use of the term 'came to be'.
Then it goes on to say the name Hayah comes from the word Hayah, which should have been written as hayah.
Your second source is a study of the word haya which is not found in the Hebrew text of the Bible.
Straggler writes:
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.
I am glad you have no interest in debating Hebrew of the Ot which is a dead language with me.
Especially since you want to use modern Hebrew.
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 189 by Straggler, posted 05-27-2010 5:14 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Straggler, posted 05-31-2010 1:59 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 206 of 607 (562604)
05-31-2010 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Peg
05-27-2010 7:22 PM


Re: Do you care to Debate the Affirmed?
Hi Peg,
Peg writes:
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.
Then please explain in plain English how:
The man in Genesis 2:7 which was formed from the dust of the ground before any other life forms of any kind can ABE (NOT) be the same mankind created in Genesis 1:27 which was created in the image of God male and female after all other living life forms was created from no stated material.
Peg writes:
No its not. That account is about the creation of mankind specifically....
Then why does it have the creation from the ground of all plant life?
Why does it have the forming of all creatures and fowl from the ground?
If it is about mankind specifically.
Peg writes:
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.
I have no problem of the generations of the mankind created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27 who was created male and female and told to replenish the earth and that all fruit from the all the trees with none forbidden to them.
I do have a problem with you or anyone telling me the man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 in the beginning being the same man as created in Genesis 1:27 which at the least would have been 6 days after the beginning.
Peg writes:
The earth was created & prepared long before that time.
I agree as it was created in the beginning, but the man was also formed from the dust of the ground in the day the Lord God created the heaven and the earth.
Peg writes:
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...
No I am saying that because:
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
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.
1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Mankind created in the image/likeness of God male and female.
Accordingly they were created at the same time.
They were told to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.
How could they put something back that had never existed before?
Verse 29 is very specific in saying "and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat".
Which fruit was forbidden?
God Bless,
Edited by ICANT, : Add not that was left out

"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 190 by Peg, posted 05-27-2010 7:22 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Peg, posted 05-31-2010 9:00 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 207 of 607 (562608)
05-31-2010 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Peg
05-27-2010 7:27 PM


Re: Do you care to Debate the Affirmed?
Peg writes:
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.
No you just like all the rest put it in a blender and get a ground up version that suits your worldview.
The mankind created in Genesis 1:27 was created after all life forms.
The man in Genesis 2:7 was formed from the dust of the ground before any life form.
Without your blender you can not make these two men the same man.
The mankind created in Genesis 1:27 was created male and female at the same time after all other life forms.
The man in Genesis 2:7 was formed from the dust of the ground before any other life form. Then plant life. Then all creatures and fowl was then formed from the ground. Then woman was made from a rib from the man.
Without your blender you can not make the two people in Genesis chapter 2 and the people in chapter 1 the same people.
The man and woman in Genesis chapter 2 was placed in a garden and forbidden from eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They were never told to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.
The mankind, male and female in Genesis 1:27 was never said to be placed in a garden. They were never forbidden to eat the fruit of any tree. They were told to be fruitful and multiply and replinish the earth.
Without your blender you can not make the two people in Genesis chapter 2 and the people in chapter 1 the same people.
The text in the story in Genesis 1:2-31 and the story in Genesis 2:4-25 are very specific in what they cover and according to what is written the mankind male and female created in Genesis 1:27 can not be the same as the man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis and the woman formed from a rib from this man in Genesis 2:22.
There is no way you can make the text say what you are presenting without dismissing the facts presented 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 191 by Peg, posted 05-27-2010 7:27 PM Peg has not replied

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


Message 208 of 607 (562610)
05-31-2010 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Peg
05-27-2010 8:05 PM


Re: Comparison of Gen 1 & 2
Hi Peg,
Peg writes:
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"
No I am not asking for a verse by verse comparison.
I am asking for a refutation of what I have presented verse by verse.
Peg writes:
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"
Are you saying they are two completely different stories as I have claimed and affirmed in this thread?
It sure sounds like it to me from the quote above.
Peg writes:
Gen 2 begins with
Thus the heavens and the earth and all their army came to their completion. 2 And 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. 3 And 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. 4 This 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
The story in chapter 1 does not end until what is labled Genesis 2:3. But Moses did not put those divisions in the Bible.
Peg writes:
I believe vs 4 is a conclusion to everything moses had just written (gen 1-chpt 2:4)
You base that belief on what?
Everywhere in the Bible that we have the statement "these are the generations of" it always preceeds the statement of the generations. It never follows the generations.
Check Genesis 5:1 which says:
Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
You make a big deal about Adam so please notice that God called the man and the woman Adam.
After these two verses it gives the generations of the man created in Genesis 1:27.
So the generations in Genesis 2:4 are the statements that follow that verse not things that is recored above it.
Peg writes:
In chpt 2:5 onward we see a detailed account only of man & womans creation.
Man was formed from the dust of the ground.
A garden was planted.
Vegetation was made to grow out of the ground.
Creatures and fowl was made from the ground.
Woman was made from the rib of the man.
These two people were placed in a garden.
The man was commanded not to eat the fruit of a certain tree.
Peg writes:
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.
But there is no new creative period.
This is just the history of what happened in the day (light period) God created the heaven and the earth in Genesis 1:1. Which existed at Genesis 1:2.
There is no day 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8.
There is only the day God created the heaven and the earth, and a listing of the things that took place in that day.
Peg writes:
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?
There was no evening and morning in the story from Genesis 2:4-4:25. There was only the day the Lord God created the heaven and the earth.
Evening did not exist until darkness came as we find in Genesis 1:2.
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 192 by Peg, posted 05-27-2010 8:05 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by purpledawn, posted 05-31-2010 5:19 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 230 by Peg, posted 05-31-2010 9:12 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 209 of 607 (562618)
05-31-2010 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by ICANT
05-31-2010 11:00 AM


Re: Two Earths? - "Do you agree that the KJV Bible says what it says? Yes/No"
So can we take the KJV bible as written to be the "absolute truth"? Or not?
ICANT writes:
Your first sourse says:
My first source explicitly says ""Hayah means "existed" or "was" in Hebrew".
But you can wriggle and writhe, twist and turn as much as you want ICANT. It is obvious to all that you are selectively translating and selectively interpreting to "affirm" your own personal opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by ICANT, posted 05-31-2010 11:00 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by ICANT, posted 05-31-2010 6:00 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 210 of 607 (562650)
05-31-2010 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by ICANT
05-31-2010 12:39 PM


Re: Comparison of Gen 1 & 2
quote:
Everywhere in the Bible that we have the statement "these are the generations of" it always preceeds the statement of the generations. It never follows the generations.
Amen!
I think the story of A&E has caused people to assume the "man" created in 1:27 is just two people. If God made mankind male and female, it is talking about mankind, not just two people. There isn't anything in the story that says only two people were created.
quote:
There was no evening and morning in the story from Genesis 2:4-4:25. There was only the day the Lord God created the heaven and the earth.
Seriously? Evening and morning aren't mentioned in the A&E story, but we can't assume that time didn't pass normally in the story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by ICANT, posted 05-31-2010 12:39 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by ICANT, posted 05-31-2010 6:24 PM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 231 by Peg, posted 05-31-2010 9:14 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