Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2

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.

1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall outa) (Qal)1) -----a) to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to passb) to come about, come to pass2) to come into being, becomea) to arise, appear, comeb) to become1) to become2) to become like3) to be instituted, be established3) to bea) to exist, be in existenceb) 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 withb) (Niphal)1) to occur, come to pass, be done, be brought about2) to be done, be finished, be gone

Straggler writes:Is it your position in this thread is that the KJV bible is poorly translated and thus cannot be taken literally?

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.

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.

purpledawn writes:I don't have time for an insincere debate.

Peg writes:its not in chronological order...its that simple.The first account is in chronological order, the 2nd is not.

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.

Peg writes:So its specifically about how the animals and plants related to the man and how the man was given dominion over them.

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.

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,

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?

Peg writes:the account in chpt 2 is very OBVIOUSLY not in chronological order.

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???

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.

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?

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,

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.

Peg writes:well you see, i and many others dont see it that way.

Peg writes:The earth was not created in 1 day.

Peg writes:The earth was created along with the universe/heavens over milleniums of time. The entire 'time' is what is one '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.

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'

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.

Peg writes:From vs 5 onward, the writer gives us more detailed info about Adams creations, the garden & the woman in their original condition.

Peg writes:You dont see a pattern forming here with regard to the genesis account?

purpledawn writes:

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: 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. 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? 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) 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. 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. 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 208I 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

purpledawn writes:The story doesn't say it was watered from beneath. It says a mist arose from the land and watered the ground. A mist descends according to the KJV Dictionary. It isn't a mist under the ground as far as I know.

purpledawn writes:Seriously? We're reading the same book. You know which tree I'm talking about. I really have to type the whole thing out for you? When I say Tree of Knowledge, I am referring to the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil or TKGE.

purpledawn writes:Neither story gives you that information. The author doesn't tell us that time is understood differently than we understand it today. I can say the threat of punishment was exaggerated because they didn't die when they ate.

purpledawn writes:Hard to prove either way since there aren't any quotation marks. It could go either way.

Moses writes:2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

purpledawn writes:Flesh refers to body. Two people can't become one body.

purpledawn writes:Since disbelief or belief is irrelevant per your parameters, this attempt to discredit my reading is beneath you.

Iblis writes:One of us has missed something, and I don't think it's me. He is specifically not trying to fit 2ff into day 6. That is the normal fundie position, it is for example what Peg is trying to do. ICANT has recognized the problems with this, and instead is trying to fit 2:4-4:24 into the gap between 1:1 and 1:2, call it day 0.

Peg writes:the first means general light and the second means source of light. This is why we should understand the light on the first day as being diffused light coming thru the atmosphere and the light on the 4th day as the actual sun being visible in the sky.

Peg writes:what is a day (yom) in hebrew?

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.

purpledawn writes:But it doesn't tell us how much was land and how much was water. Your avatar is a guess.

purpledawn writes:

quote:

---

Does the text say the generations of the heaven and the earth?

---

I don't know. What does the Hebrew say?Since generations refers to people, the author may have been personifying the heaven and earth or it is referring to the people that follow.

purpledawn writes:That is convenient, but it does occur in the other two texts and the ancient Hebrew is a dead language. Are you saying the translations are incorrect?

purpledawn writes:In a modern reading it is difficult to say.

purpledawn writes:When I proof papers or manuscripts, that is what I look for. Consistency in style and content.

purpledawn writes:That's also one of the reasons we can tell that Genesis 1 and 2 weren't written to be read together. They weren't written to compliment each other.

purpledawn writes:In the OP, you stated: In this thread I will affirm that there are 2 creations presented in Genesis chapter 1 and 2.Since you tend to be vague, are you saying there are two creation stories or that there were only two specific things created over the course of the two stories?

purpledawn writes:I've noticed you're try to fit the Gen 2 story within Day 6 of the Gen 1 story. The lack of consistency between the two stories tells us that they aren't meant to be "blended" together.

purpledawn writes:I still contend that to understand the point of the story we have to try and understand to the best of our ability what the author was trying to tell his original audience. Since ancient Hebrew is a dead language, some meanings of words, idioms, and slang may be lost to us. There are some things we may never know. They are lost in time.

purpledawn writes:Your theory is that the A&E story (Genesis 2:4-4:24) describes what happened in Genesis 1:1.

purpledawn writes:Where does the Genesis 1 story (Genesis 1:2-2:3) take place given all the descendants from Adam to Noah in Genesis 5?

Moses writes: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.

purpledawn writes:Essentially you're implying that God reworked the planet after the "fall" and created mankind again. That doesn't bode well for doctrine.

Luke writes:Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

John writes:Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

JRTjr writes:If Not; Why Not?

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.