Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 226 of 607 (562679)
05-31-2010 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Straggler
05-31-2010 7:23 PM


Re: Two Earths? - "Do you agree that the KJV Bible says what it says? Yes/No"
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes:
You can argue till you are blue in the face about whether "hayah" is best translated as "was" or not (and this link does exactly that). But it is obviously widely considered to be a valid translation and it is indisputably this translation that has been used by those who wrote the KJV.
You expect me to accept anything AIG says after how it has been raked over the coals here at EvC. Come on I don't believe them anymore than you or anyone else here at EvC does.
Concerning hayah:
You can search the Hebrew word hayah in several places on the internet. Strongs # H1933
Here You can find one of those
places.
This definition is from the Gesenius's Lexicon .
1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out
a) (Qal)
1) -----
a) to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass
b) to come about, come to pass
2) to come into being, become
a) to arise, appear, come
b) to become
1) to become
2) to become like
3) to be instituted, be established
3) to be
a) to exist, be in existence
b) to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time)
c) to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality)
d) to accompany, be with
b) (Niphal)
1) to occur, come to pass, be done, be brought about
2) to be done, be finished, be gone
If you will notice there is no place that the word 'was' exists.
If you scroll down to the Concordance Results you will find that hayah appears 76 times in 72 verses.
If you search the texts you will find hayah translated 'was' in Genesis 1:2 and Genesis 3:1.
You find in Exodus 5:13 hayah translated as 'was'.
In Zechariah 8:15 you find hayah translated 'there was'.
If you type was in the Bible search area and press enter you will get the results that was appears 4,531 times in 3638 verses.
If you search through the verses that was appears in you will find that most of them was supplied by the translators for better understanding of what the Hebrew text was saying.
In Genesis 42:1, Numbers 9:20, 9:21, you find the Hebrew word yesh definition: which is, 1) being, existence, substance, there is or are translated as was.
After searching 750 of the 2591 times the word 'was' appears in the OT the above 7 instances is the only times a word was translated 'was' the rest was supplied by the translators. It actually seems there was no word that actually meant was in the Hebrew language.
Straggler writes:
Is it your position in this thread is that the KJV bible is poorly translated and thus cannot be taken literally?
It is my position that the original scripture was the literal word of God delivered to His messengers to record for us.
We do not have the original texts.
The 1611 KJV Bible we have is the best English translation we have. Is it perfect? No as it has been translated by men.
That is the reason I spent so many years studying the Hebrew and Greek language's so I would not have to accept what someone else says that the texts are supposed to say. I can take the original and study them for myself. I can also make mistakes just like everybody else.
You may ask why I don't like the newer translations. Well most of those have been done by men who do not know the God of the books of the Bible as their personal savior.
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 223 by Straggler, posted 05-31-2010 7:23 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Straggler, posted 06-01-2010 12:27 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 227 of 607 (562680)
05-31-2010 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by purpledawn
05-31-2010 7:45 AM


Re: Modern Language
purpledawn writes:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by purpledawn, posted 05-31-2010 7:45 AM purpledawn has not replied

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


Message 228 of 607 (562681)
05-31-2010 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by ICANT
05-31-2010 11:40 AM


Re: Do you care to Debate the Affirmed?
ICANT writes:
The man in Genesis 2:7 which was formed from the dust of the ground before any other life forms of any kind can 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.
its not in chronological order...its that simple.
The first account is in chronological order, the 2nd is not.
ICANT writes:
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.
because the writer is explaining how God bought the animals to the man to name....and how he planted a garden (full of plantlife) for the man to cultivate.
So its specifically about how the animals and plants related to the man and how the man was given dominion over them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by ICANT, posted 05-31-2010 11:40 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by ICANT, posted 05-31-2010 9:19 PM Peg has replied

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


Message 229 of 607 (562682)
05-31-2010 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by purpledawn
05-31-2010 8:17 PM


Re: Do you care to Debate the Affirmed?
Hi PD,
purpledawn writes:
I started responding to what you wrote, but it is obvious you don't know which century you wish to stick to. You bring up the 1611 KJV, but didn't quote it as such in the OP. You aren't affirming anything. You're running amuck.
The 1611 version is the authorized KJV Bible.
The one we normally use is on that the old English has been cleaned up so we can read it easier. But it is not the KJV Bible it is a modified version.
I did specify the KJV Bible.
purpledawn writes:
You take a modern meaning and then apply reasoning to the ancient writer, but don't care what the ancient audience understood. No wonder you're confused.
It doesn't even matter what you or I understand the text to say. That does not mean the writer of the text did not understand what he was writing.
purpledawn writes:
I don't have time for an insincere debate.
You think I have 5 hours to refute part of your verse by verse presentation and then you want to call it insincere debate.
If you had been sincere in the debate you would have actually took my presentation and refuted it verse by verse as is required in real debate rather that present your own affirmations of what you believe the verses to say.
So why don't we let the readers decide for themselves.
I have presented my case in detail and you nor anyone else has even attempted to debate what I presented.
Everybody wants to preach what they believe and no one is intersted in debating the issues.
God Bless in your endevors,

"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 225 by purpledawn, posted 05-31-2010 8:17 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by purpledawn, posted 06-01-2010 9:37 AM ICANT has replied

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


Message 230 of 607 (562683)
05-31-2010 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by ICANT
05-31-2010 12:39 PM


Re: Comparison of Gen 1 & 2
ICANT writes:
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.
yes they are completely different, but not in the way you think.
As i've said, one is a chronological account of all created things, the other is specific information about mankind.
ICANT writes:
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.
exactly. This is why the whole lot should be read as one account....the way moses wrote it.
And this is also why its possible that the end of the chronological account of creation could have concluded in Gen 2:4 rather then the end of chpt 1.
Gen 2:5 could very well be the beginning of the detailed story of man.
This is why you cant be so dogmatic about it....its not 100% clear due to the way the book has been broken up by the translators.
ICANT writes:
But there is no new creative period.
but isnt that YOUR argument...that there were two creations? One of the first lot of humans, and then the man created in chpt 2 was a new creation. So why is there not a new creative day mentioned?

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 233 by ICANT, posted 05-31-2010 9:47 PM Peg has replied

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


Message 231 of 607 (562684)
05-31-2010 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by purpledawn
05-31-2010 5:19 PM


Re: Comparison of Gen 1 & 2
purpledawn writes:
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.
if you agree that there are two creation stories being spoken of, then that is exactly what you'd have to assume.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by purpledawn, posted 05-31-2010 5:19 PM purpledawn has not replied

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


Message 232 of 607 (562685)
05-31-2010 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Peg
05-31-2010 9:00 PM


Re: Do you care to Debate the Affirmed?
Hi Peg,
I need to change Message 206 as I left out the word 'not' in the text you quoted in your message.
Peg writes:
its not in chronological order...its that simple.
The first account is in chronological order, the 2nd is not.
Your problem is you are putting the events of 6,000+ years ago ahead of events that took place in the day the Lord God created the Heaven and the Earth.
If it is not two chronological order's of two different stories how do you decide which is the correct chronological order?
Peg writes:
because the writer is explaining how God bought the animals to the man to name....and how he planted a garden (full of plantlife) for the man to cultivate.
Where does the writer say that or even hint that?
Peg writes:
So its specifically about how the animals and plants related to the man and how the man was given dominion over them.
Your conclusion is not based on what the text says.
So what do you base it on?
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 228 by Peg, posted 05-31-2010 9:00 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Peg, posted 05-31-2010 9:51 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 233 of 607 (562689)
05-31-2010 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Peg
05-31-2010 9:12 PM


Re: Comparison of Gen 1 & 2
Hi Peg,
Peg writes:
This is why you cant be so dogmatic about it....its not 100% clear due to the way the book has been broken up by the translators.
Why not?
Genesis 2:4 says:
2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
The generations always follow the statement of these are the generations.
Like in Genesis 5:1, 2 the generations of the man created in Genesis 1:27 in the image/likeness of God. You don't find the generations listed before the declaration they follow the declaration.
Peg writes:
but isnt that YOUR argument...that there were two creations? One of the first lot of humans, and then the man created in chpt 2 was a new creation. So why is there not a new creative day mentioned?
Is your understanding of the English language that bad or are you being obstinate?
There is a creation event that takes place in Genesis 1:1.
The history of that creation is recorded in Genesis 2:4-25.
In that creation the first man was formed from the dust of the ground.
God formed man from the dust of the ground.
Then God planted a Garden and put the man in it.
He then caused vegetation to grow out of the ground.
God then gave man a job to keep the garden.
God commanded the man not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
God then formed the creatures and fowl from the ground.
God then took a rib from the man and made a woman.
A lot of things transpired between Genesis 2:25 and 4:25.
God has not ceased His creating at this point.
Then we find the earth in the condition it is in in Genesis 1:2.
We then have the accounts you call the first creation.
And you find God ceasing to create in Genesis 1:27 where He created mankind in his image/likeness male and female.
There has been one creation that began in the morning in Genesis 1:1 and ended with six light periods and 6 dark periods when God ceased from His creating, and rested on day seven.
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 230 by Peg, posted 05-31-2010 9:12 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Peg, posted 05-31-2010 10:13 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 234 of 607 (562690)
05-31-2010 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by ICANT
05-31-2010 9:19 PM


Re: Do you care to Debate the Affirmed?
ICANT writes:
If it is not two chronological order's of two different stories how do you decide which is the correct chronological order?
the account in chpt 2 is very OBVIOUSLY not in chronological order.
Man is created before the animals and plants??? do you think thats even possible? What did he eat while waiting for the plants to grow???
ICANT writes:
Where does the writer say that or even hint that?
Gen 2:19-20 says the man was naming all the animals that God bought to him. If the man was created before all other creatures, how is it that Adam could was given the task of naming the animals? Obviously they did exist, right?
Of course this is based on the text. What else could it be based on?
Gen 2:19 "Now Jehovah God was forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens, and he began bringing them to the man to see what he would call each one; and whatever the man would call it, each living soul, that was its name. 20So the man was calling the names of all the domestic animals and of the flying creatures of the heavens and of every wild beast of the field, but for man there was found no helper as a complement of him. 21Hence Jehovah God had a deep sleep fall upon the man and, while he was sleeping, he took one of his ribs and then closed up the flesh over its place. 22And Jehovah God proceeded to build the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman and to bring her to the man.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by ICANT, posted 05-31-2010 9:19 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by ICANT, posted 06-01-2010 11:09 AM Peg has replied

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


Message 235 of 607 (562692)
05-31-2010 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by ICANT
05-31-2010 9:47 PM


Re: Comparison of Gen 1 & 2
ICANT writes:
There is a creation event that takes place in Genesis 1:1.
The history of that creation is recorded in Genesis 2:4-25.
well you see, i and many others dont see it that way.
The earth was not created in 1 day.
The earth was created along with the universe/heavens over milleniums of time. The entire 'time' is what is one 'day'.
In chpt 1 vs 2, the existing earth was in a primitive condition so God proceeds to work on it to prepare it for habitation. Chpt 1 is a chronological description of that creative process said to span 6 time periods or 6 'days'
Chpt 2 gives a recap of the creative process after its completion. The 7th day begins and God rests thus signifying that everything he had planned to create was complete.
From vs 5 onward, the writer gives us more detailed info about Adams creations, the garden & the woman in their original condition.
Chpt 3 explains how the first 2 humans came to loose their garden home and how they became sinners.
Chpt 4 tells us about their first children of Adam and Eve
Chpt 5 traces the family line of Adam from his 3rd son Seth - Noah.
You dont see a pattern forming here with regard to the genesis account?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by ICANT, posted 05-31-2010 9:47 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by ICANT, posted 06-01-2010 12:20 PM Peg has replied

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


Message 236 of 607 (562752)
06-01-2010 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by ICANT
05-31-2010 9:05 PM


Genesis 1
quote:
The 1611 version is the authorized KJV Bible.
The one we normally use is on that the old English has been cleaned up so we can read it easier. But it is not the KJV Bible it is a modified version.
I did specify the KJV Bible.
And the KJV I have in my hand says it is the authorized version.
In Message 102 you said:
ICANT writes:
I am affirming what the KJV Bible says nothing more or less.
It makes no difference who wrote it.
It makes not difference when it was wrote.
It makes no difference what texts it was translated from.
It makes not difference whether it is true or false.
You didn't specify the 1611 version in the OP and what you quoted wasn't from the 1611. You also didn't provide a line by line in the OP. It wasn't until Message 36 in response to Phillip that you gave a line by line, but you didn't provide quotes from the 1611 version so that we can all be on the same page.
Now you and I don't disagree that there are two creation stories, but our reasons for our conclusions are different.
We do seem to disagree on what the stories in the KJV are saying in various spots.
In Message 36, you simply say that the heaven and earth was created. Now since there are various meanings for the words heaven and earth, this doesn't tell us what you feel is being said. In Message 211 in response to my Message 193, you say that Heaven refers to the universe and Earth refers to the planet. Your view is contrary to what the story tells us and to the KJV Bible Dictionary. The story tells us what heaven and earth refer to.
In Message 36, you say that verse two tells you that "it" had become inhabitable. Verse 2 does not indicate that the land had changed from a former condition. Notice the word "and". At this point, the narrator hasn't told us that the land is covered with water as you assume in Message 211.
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.
In Message 36, you disagree that verse 3 has God speaking illumination into existence. You feel he just made it visible. The verse doesn't say that. In Message 211, you say the light was just made visible to the water that covered the land. The story doesn't tell us that. You're saying that when God says, "Let there be", that he isn't speaking things into existence as the story implies.
In Message 36, you say that you know from verse 4 that when God separated the light and dark, that it was light on half of the planet (I'm using the word planet instead of earth because that is what I feel you are really saying) and dark on the other half of the planet. The story doesn't tell us that either. You're adding.
At least in verse 5, we agree that a light period and then a dark period equals a common day (or vice versa).
In Message 36, you say that in verses 6,7, and 8 that God brought in atmosphere, which he called Heaven. I can agree that firmament refers to atmosphere. There is no mention of uplifted waters though. The atmosphere separated the waters so that there was now water above the atmosphere and water below the atmosphere.
In Message 211, you stated: Since the Earth is surrounded by this expanse of atmosphere it stands to reason that the writer of Genesis knew the Earth was some kind of circular mass. Whether his readers understood this or not is not important.
I disagree with your reasoning, but remember that isn't what you want to discuss. You are just affirming what the KJV says. The story doesn't tell us the atmosphere encirles the dry land. The story also doesn't tell us how much dry land there is. If you bring in the writer, then we have to take into account what was known to the writer at the time the story was written. But you said, it makes no difference who wrote it or when it was written. So your reasoning is irrelevant to the discussion.
In Message 36 and Message 211, you feel that the gathering of the waters and exposing the land mass would look like your avatar. You have no way of knowing because the story doesn't tell us how much dry land was exposed or whether there was one mass or more than one. Again to be more specific, we would need to look at the maps of the past. That is outside what you want to discuss. So you're making an assertion that is not supported by the text.
Up to verse 11 you feel that nothing has been created, only rearranged. So you don't feel that the phrase "Let there be ..." is another way of saying God created. The story implies otherwise. God spoke and things came into being.
In Message 36, you claim that the KJV says the seeds are already in the earth. You made the same statement in Message 211. I find that to be can incorrect reading of the text. Due to your error you ask where they seeds came from. Why ask that when it is beyond the scope of this discussion?
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
God said let the ground bring forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit trees whose fruit has seeds in them. It is a description of the type of plants that came forth. It doesn't say there were seeds already in the ground. So grass, herbs, and fruit trees were the first things grown. No root foods.
In Message 36, you say you know that the land obeyed and brought forth the plants called for. You personified the land. The implication of the story is that God caused the plants to grow from the ground. He spoke and it happened.
I disagree with your implication that "let there be" isn't creating.
InMessage 36 and Message 211 you don't feel that God created the sun, moon or stars. (greater and lesser light)
16 And God made two great lights the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night he made the stars also
The story doesn't support your contention.
In Message 36 and Message 211, you feel that the whales created in verse 21 are the first thing created after 1:1. I still disagree. Look at the text.
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
21And God created great whales and every living creature that moveth which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind and every winged fowl after his kind and God saw that it was good
You keep missing the word "and". God created great whales AND every living creature that moveth which the waters brought forth and every winged fowl.
Same problem with verses 24 and 25.
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
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
We agree mankind was created, but we don't know how many.
We agree the story has everyone as vegetarians.
We agree God rested on the seventh day and sanctified it.
We also agree that the phrase "these are the generations" refers to what comes after, not before the statement. Message 208
I think we disagree that generations refers to the people, not just history in general as you state in Message 211. There is no definition in the KJV dictionary.
quote:
I don't know where that conclusion comes from as your analysis does not confirm it.
My conclusion that Genesis 1 is basic creation, building the base and then filling it is supported by the story, when read correctly. The first three days create the foundation and the last three fill it.
Mankind isn't the primary point of the story. God creating and resting is the point of the story. A law was based on the resting portion, not on the creation of man. The creation and rest was more important.
Edited by purpledawn, : ABE: Conclusion

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 229 by ICANT, posted 05-31-2010 9:05 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by ICANT, posted 06-01-2010 3:46 PM purpledawn has replied

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


Message 237 of 607 (562763)
06-01-2010 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Peg
05-31-2010 9:51 PM


Re: Do you care to Debate the Affirmed?
Hi Peg,
Peg writes:
the account in chpt 2 is very OBVIOUSLY not in chronological order.
Do you mean like vegetation in Genesis 1:11, 12 on the third day before light on the fourth day in Genesis 1:14?
Peg writes:
Man is created before the animals and plants??? do you think thats even possible? What did he eat while waiting for the plants to grow???
Do I think it is even possible? Sure I do the Bible says:
Moses writes:
Genesis 2:5 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.
2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
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.
Was man created as an infant or a full grown man?
If God could create this wonderful universe we live in what is the problem with Him providing full grown grass that needed mowing, and full grown animals to mow the grass?
If God created a full grown man what is the problem with Him creating full grown fruit trees loaded down with fruit?
I seem to remember a lot of people that picked bread up off the ground every morning for 40 years and they had a rock following them around that produced water for them to drink.
Your god seems to be small enough for you to put him in your pocket, pulling him out when you need him for some purpose.
Peg writes:
Gen 2:19-20 says the man was naming all the animals that God bought to him. If the man was created before all other creatures, how is it that Adam could was given the task of naming the animals? Obviously they did exist, right?
You make the statement: "the man was naming all the animals that God brought to him."
Did the man have to exist to be able to name the animals?
Then you present the evidence to prove that animnals was created before man.
Peg writes:
Gen 2:19 "Now Jehovah God was forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens,
This says God was in the process of forming the creatures from the ground.
Peg writes:
and he began bringing them to the man to see what he would call each one; and whatever the man would call it, each living soul, that was its name.
This says during the process of forming these creatures He brought them to the man to see what the man would call each one.
It does not say after God finished creating the animals He brought them to the man to name.
Would you please explain how it is possible for the man to name the creatures as God was creating them and bringing them to him if he did not exist first?
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 234 by Peg, posted 05-31-2010 9:51 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Peg, posted 06-01-2010 7:10 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 238 of 607 (562765)
06-01-2010 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Peg
05-31-2010 10:13 PM


Re: Comparison of Gen 1 & 2
Hi Peg,
Peg writes:
well you see, i and many others dont see it that way.
As I have stated many times I have met no one that agrees with me.
I have met some gapers that believe some of what I present but they agree with you that the people are the same.
It is hard for people to think outside of the box when they have been in the box all their life.
I was never in the box as I came to my conclusions long before anyone tried to teach me what the Bible said about creation. In fact everybody has always tried to convince me of the same things you are trying to convince me of and they been doing it for 61 years. Which has caused me to examine it from every angle including what Science says.
Peg writes:
The earth was not created in 1 day.
Do you have evidence to support that assertion?
Then you immediately contradict your statement by making the following statement.
Peg writes:
The earth was created along with the universe/heavens over milleniums of time. The entire 'time' is what is one 'day'.
When did that Day end?
I am dumbfounded.
Peg agreeing that the Heaven and the Earth was created in ONE DAY.
Now could we agree that it was a light period that ended by darkness?
God did call a light period 'DAY'
Moses writes:
Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
God called the light Day.
God called the darkness Night.
The day that the Heaven and the Earth was created could not be a dark period as it would have been called Night, not Day.
Peg writes:
In chpt 1 vs 2, the existing earth was in a primitive condition so God proceeds to work on it to prepare it for habitation. Chpt 1 is a chronological description of that creative process said to span 6 time periods or 6 'days'
The text does not say it was in primitive condition.
The text says the earth was covered with water.
We add all kinds of things because of the words that was used to try to convey the condition it was in.
The fact is that all land mass was covered with water.
There are fossils of sea creatures on mountains as well as inside of mountains which prove that the land mass was covered at least one time by water.
I agree that God begins in Genesis 1:3 to prepare the planet Earth for the habitation of creatures, vegetation, and mankind.
I also agree that God finished His creative work in verse 27.
This process came to a close in Genesis 2:3 with God blessing the seventh day and setting it apart as a day of rest because God had ceased all creative work.
Chpt 2 gives a recap of the creative process after its completion. The 7th day begins and God rests thus signifying that everything he had planned to create was complete.
Since Moses did not divide his work into verses and chapters I can not agree with your assertion that chapter 2 is a recap.
I do not find any evidence for a recap theory if you have anything other than your assertion please present it now.
Peg writes:
From vs 5 onward, the writer gives us more detailed info about Adams creations, the garden & the woman in their original condition.
If you are talking about the man formed from the dust of the ground in 2:7 before any plant, creature or fowl I would agree. But you are not talking about that man. You are talking about the mankind was created in Genesis 1:27 male and female.
Peg writes:
You dont see a pattern forming here with regard to the genesis account?
I see a pattern just not the one you are preaching.
Now if you can explain all the differences in the two accounts using the Bible as it is the final authority then I could see it your way until then I remain.
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 235 by Peg, posted 05-31-2010 10:13 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Peg, posted 06-01-2010 7:17 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 239 of 607 (562767)
06-01-2010 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by ICANT
05-31-2010 8:48 PM


Ever Moving Goalposts
ICANT now writes:
The 1611 KJV Bible we have is the best English translation we have. Is it perfect? No as it has been translated by men.
Hmmmm. Let us compare this with what ICANT wrote previously in this thread.
ICANT previously 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
Do you see why some might consider your stance on this somewhat contradictory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by ICANT, posted 05-31-2010 8:48 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 240 of 607 (562768)
06-01-2010 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by ICANT
05-31-2010 7:26 PM


Re: Moving The Goalposts
The KJV does not say another Earth existed in Genesis 1:2.
Well it all depends on the assumed quality of your translation and then your subjective interpretation of that translation doesn't it? That is what this thread has demonstrated if anything.
Therefore you are refuted.
You have contradicted the entire premise of your own thread and been shown that the words of the KJV taken literally can just as easily apply to two earths as your own unique and bizarre claims.
I don't think it is me who has been refuted here ICANT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by ICANT, posted 05-31-2010 7:26 PM ICANT 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