Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2

your welcome.One of the problems with bible translations is that hebrew words can have many different meanings and one word could be used in a variety of ways by the ancients. The problem for the early translators was that they did not fully understand the hebrew language and so in some cases used a word that seemed most obvious to them....sometimes their lack of understanding shaped their theologies such as a literal 7 days of creation.Modern translators have much more information to work with, so they tend to understand a bit more and translations are being upgraded all the time to adapt 'somewhat' to their improved understanding of hebrew. While they may still use the word 'day' its not necessarily wrong, but it does give the wrong impression if we, the readers, dont understand what the original word can mean. Its always good to read the footnotes in reference bibles because those footnotes will give you more information about the particular words in hebrew and what they literally mean. Both translators and teachers should provide this information to the rest of us, and they should teach in harmony with those original words.Unfortunately, thats not what most of them do which is why its important for students of the bible to analyze what they are being taught rather then just accept it. There needs to be a certain amount of personal research that goes into reading the bible....or find a good teacher who has already done that research and can provide it for you. No one witnessed the creation of the earth, but the one who wrote the book of genesis would have been given divine guidance in writing the account in the same way that God guided the writing of the prophecies in the bible. But the writer also makes mentions of other writings that he had access to which provided some information about Adam and his family decendents, So some of the info comes from other writings that existed at the time.According to the ancient hebrews, Moses was the original writer of the Torah...'the law of moses' It was orginally written on 5 scrolls which is what the word 'Pentateuch' means.As the years passed, copies of the scrolls were made by the jewish scribes and this is why the styles of writings changed slighty. The original hebrew language was written in pictograph (much like egypts hyroglyphx) but over time they developed other writing techniques and when the scrolls were copied, those newer techniques were employed. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

why is the KJV the authority? Im sorry, im deliberatly not commenting further on most of your post only because we keep going over and over the same points.Now regarding Adams 'name'.
All hebrew names were the same. They were names that had a specific meaning. So basically, if you want to claim that the Adam mentioned in 5:1 is not an individual actually named 'Adam' then you would have to say the same about every individual named in the bible.Eve = Living One (as Adam said "because she will become the mother everyone living)
Cain = Something Produced (Eve proclaimed she had produced a man with the aid of Jehovah)
Moses = Drawn Out (because he was drawn from the water)
Jacob = Seizing the Heel; Supplanter (was born holding the heel of his twin brother Esau)
Abraham = Father of a Crowd (father of the isreal nation)
Sarah = Princess (God renamed her this because of her position as matriach to the nation)
David = Beloved (the one who was loved by God)
Job = Object of Hostility (due to his terrible trials)
Solomon = Peace (becauase his rulership would be one of peace for the nation)
Gabriel = Able-Bodied One of God
Jesus = Jehovah Is Salvationi 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.Even the christians refered to him as the first man and the one who introduced sin into the world. 1cor 15:21-22 "For since death is through a man, resurrection of the dead is also through a man. 22For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive

​

Rom 5:18 "So, then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation"

​

Rom 5:12 "That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin"Jesus said they were the ones created 'in the beginning'
You say the ones created 'in the beginning' are other humans.quite a contrast. Its not.
The earth was created 'in the beginning' which was during the time God also made the heavens/universe.6,000 odd years ago was when he created the first man and planted the garden. 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.then God rested and he has been resting ever since. As i said, we view the 'evening and morning' as a figurative 'evening and morning'
In Gen 2, all six days are called ONE day. So it cant be anything but figurative.

Hi Iblis,just wanted to make a point on your verse at Heb 11:3 The greek word they render 'worlds' in this particular verse is tous aionas and it means literally the orders of thingsSo this is not actually meaning the physical world. The greek word for 'world' is actually 'Kosmos' so i think you may be using an old translation...which one are you using?The NWT renders this verse as Also the context of this passage shows that the 'world/earth' is not what is being discussed. Faith in things unseen is what is being discussed. So when it speaks of the 'system of things' its actually refers to the 'events' that happened in the world that God had fortold such as the flood of noahs day for instance.Context and original word meanings need to be looked closely to make a determination of what is being said in a verse.

ah of course....the kjv...the only 'true' bible lolWell believe it or not the King James Bible has already been changed. today no one reads the King James Version in its original form. You do not read the bible the way Milton, Jefferson or Lincoln read it. Even after just 2 years after the original was released there were over 300 changes made to it....that has crept up to around 24,000 in our own time.If you want to read the KJV as it was originally translated, you need to get yourself a 1611 version. Im guessing they are pretty expensive lol. And then you'll need to decipher which words are used correctly because as an example, it translates the hebrew word Sheol 31 times as hell, 31 times as grave, and 3 times as pit.but hey, if its the only true bible, then go for it.

Lets be real, the word is only a 'perfect choice' if it fits with the context of whats being discussed. Look at what the writer is talking about.If I say something about 'the world/age of enlightenment' or the 'world/age of discovery' would you conclude that I was speaking about the physical world or the world of human knowledge & achievement?Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

but is he really refering to the creation of the physical world?Look at vs 1 &2.
Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. 2For by means of THIS the men of old times had witness borne to themIts discussing faith.
It says by means of 'something' the men of old had witness borne to them.
To have witness born to you means you have to see something. No one saw the creation of the physical earth so it cant be speaking about that.The 'THIS' in vs 2 is something that these people of old actually 'saw' or witnessed with their own eyes which gave them an 'Assured Expectation' of the future.In vs 4 about Able it says he had witness borne to him that he was righteous
Then in vs 5 about Enoch it says "he had the witness that he had pleased God well"So the witness being spoken of is not that of the creation of the world but some other 'evident demonstration' from God. For Able, it was Gods approval. For Noah, it was the flood. For Sarah, it was her pregnancy in old age. For Abraham, it was fathering a child in his old age.I had a further look at one of the cross references in my bible, and it references over to Colossians 1:26. Here the same word is used in a similar context but whats intersting is that the KJV changes the word 'world to 'age'The context shows they are speaking of aionon as 'past times' because those people of the past were told of the Messiah, but did not know the reality of him would be in Jesus christ. That was a 'secret' to them, however, it was now revealed to the christians. If thats applied the same way to Hebrews 11, it would be so much more in harmony with the context because it would be saying that the people of old who had witnessess born to them, had faith because of what they had witnessed of 'past times'....events that they saw which gave them confidence and faith in what God would do in the future. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

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 2IOW, There is only one creation of man and woman according to Jesus, not two. 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. 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. 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.

i have said what the difference is several times now and it keeps flying over your head lolOne 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.

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 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?

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. 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. completely agree what is it about the story that proves it is not written to be viewed as an actual event?

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. 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 GROUNDSo 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' 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?

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? 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: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 do understand that, but how on earth is anyone going to understand the hebrew bible when they are reading it in a modern english contextits absurd. 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 later you changed your tune and told ICANT in msg 174 then you go and spoil it by saying in msg 199 decide on which stand you are taking and let me know because im terribly confused lol. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

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. your link does appear to mean the planet in its first and third definition.

i still dont agree that its a real grammatical rule. And i certainly dont agree that the hebrews would have had the same rule....look at a hebrew interlinear, you wont find capitalization (except for Elohim in genesis), you wont even find paragraphs.And it still doesnt explain how there could be land before the land was created.