Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 241 of 607 (562778)
06-01-2010 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by ICANT
05-31-2010 5:21 PM


Genesis 2
quote:
This part of the verse is telling us the time frame that is covered in the first part of the verse.
The time frame is more than just that small part.
...in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens And every plant of the field before it was in the earth and every herb of the field before it grew for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth and there was not a man to till the ground
quote:
There was no misty rain. The ground was watered from beneath.
The narrator is telling us that in the day God created the Heaven and the Earth before there was man, plants, animals or rain.
That's what I said in Message 193. TBack when God made the earth and the sky, before anything was growing, and before man was around, God caused a misty rain. From the KJV Dictionary.
Mist
1. Water falling in very numerous, but fine and almost imperceptible drops.
A mist is a multitude of small but solid globules, which therefore descend.
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.
So we agree how man was formed, although I'm not sure why you have to rephrase.
We agree that about Eden.
quote:
There is no tree of knowledge.
There was a tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it covered no other knowledge.
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.
quote:
In which he tells us of all the bodies of water on the face of the earth. There was no sea or seas mentioned.
Actually the verse is telling us about the river in Eden and when it parted, not the planet. Notice the regions mentioned.
10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden and from thence it was parted and became into four heads
11 The name of the first is Pison that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah where there is gold
12 And the gold of that land is good there is bdellium and the onyx stone
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria And the fourth river is Euphrates
We agree God gave Adam a job.
quote:
I agree that God set the boundaries of what the man could eat as He commanded him not to eat of a specific tree.
I disagree that God exaggerated the punishment for disobedience.
Because that man died in the same light period in which he was formed from the dust of the ground as he did not exist in Genesis 1:2.
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.
quote:
God did not realize any such thing. He made a statement it was not good for man to be alone.
So he made him a helper. He didn't say why it wasn't good for man to be alone or what the helper would help him with. The story says God made him a helper.
And the LORD God said It is not good that the man should be alone I will make him an help meet for him
quote:
He actually had several helpers but just not one suited for God's purpose for mankind.
The story doesn't say that.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle and to the fowl of the air and to every beast of the field but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him
quote:
Men were not from dirt. Man was formed from the dust of the ground. But that did not make him a man as the form was lifeless. God breathing the breath of life into that form is what caused the resultant living being constituting a man.
Dust is fine particles of soil. Dust is also dirt. Also see dust in Strong's. I don't think there is such a thing as clean dust.
quote:
So the man said it not the narrator and there is nothing mentioned about a baby.
Hard to prove either way since there aren't any quotation marks. It could go either way.
Flesh refers to body. Two people can't become one body. So the phrase is referring to something else. I read it as a child. Sex is a joining. Then we find out their both naked. It is one of those phrases that can be taken many ways. There is no concrete answer.
quote:
So where do you get the modern perspective from?
Not sure I understand the question. I read it the same way I read any story today.
quote:
Your commentary does not make it just a story.
No, the man created from dust and the woman created from bone are clear indicators. Man searching the animals for a mate.
quote:
Your disbelief in the story has no effect on what is recorded in the KJV Bible.
You said this wasn't about what is true or false. You said it was about what the KJV says. So disbelief or belief is irrelevant.
quote:
But thanks for spending the time to go verse by verse even though you don't believe the stories.
Since disbelief or belief is irrelevant per your parameters, this attempt to discredit my reading is beneath you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by ICANT, posted 05-31-2010 5:21 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by ICANT, posted 06-01-2010 4:20 PM purpledawn has replied

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


Message 242 of 607 (562784)
06-01-2010 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by purpledawn
06-01-2010 9:37 AM


Re: Genesis 1
Hi PD,
Thanks for the response I though you was through with the discussion.
I need the discussion as it points out weak points in what I am presenting. All of this discussion is in preparation for fine tuning my Book "The Real Creation Presented in Genesis".
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.
ICANT writes:
Adding I have a modern English KJV Bible that says it is the Authorized King James Version. Fact is that it is a modified version of the Authorized King James Version Bible. The one that was actually authorized by the King of England.
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.
ICANT writes:
When I do the book I will be more specific thanks.
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.
ICANT writes:
Adding So when I write the book I need to set out a list of words and their definitions that I am using. thanks
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.
ICANT writes:
Adding there is no 'and' in the Hebrew text it was added by the Masoretes after the time of Christ. I appologize for not presenting the argument from the original text here as time is too precious to go into such discussions but they will be included in the book. I have mentioned some but not argued the points.
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.
ICANT writes:
Adding again there is no Hebrew words translated 'let there' the Hebrew word hayah is translated 'let there be'. The word hayah definition has been presented in several places. There are only 5 words in verse 3. One each for God, said, be,
light, light. Everything else is added. I will not go into a discussion of the language and construction of the Hebrew sentences here is
as it is too involved.
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.
ICANT writes:
Adding If it was not dark on one side and light on the other where was the division of the light?
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.
ICANT writes:
Adding If they were not uplifted from the face of the waters where did they come from?
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.
ICANT writes:
Adding The text does say the water was in one place and the land in one place. My Avatar is a modified copy of Pangea.
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.
ICANT writes:
Adding As I said there is no 'let there' in the Hebrew text.
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.
ICANT writes:
Adding This verse says plants that have their seed inside, upon the earth. What is upon the earth?
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.
ICANT writes:
Adding I keep missing the 'and' as it does not appear in the Hebrew text which I am allowed to use to support my position. I will make that clearer in my book. Thanks again.
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.
ICANT writes:
Adding There are definitions in the Hebrew Lexicons from which all in the KJV Bible was derived.
Question is the genealogy of a family the family history?
If yes why can't the heavens and the earth have a history of the day they were created as declared in Genesis 2:4?
ICANT writes:
Adding Does the text say the generations of the heaven and the earth?
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
I found you had edited while I was composing.
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 236 by purpledawn, posted 06-01-2010 9:37 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by purpledawn, posted 06-01-2010 9:30 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 248 by purpledawn, posted 06-03-2010 8:00 AM ICANT has replied

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


Message 243 of 607 (562785)
06-01-2010 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by purpledawn
06-01-2010 1:54 PM


Re: Genesis 2
Hi PD,
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.
Does it say the water came from the atmosphere?
OR
Does it say it went up from the earth?
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.
You want me to be specific and I thank you for pointing out where I was not as specific as needed.
So why can't I ask you to be specific?
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.
If this story is what is claimed in Genesis 2:4 as being the history of the Heaven and the Earth in the day they were created.
When did that day end. For the end of day to come darkness must appear.
There is no darkness stated until Genesis 1:2.
There was no man and woman in existence at Genesis 1:2.
Therefore they died in the Day (light period) in which they were created.
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.
Tell my wife that, Thursday will be our 53 wedding anniversary.
purpledawn writes:
Since disbelief or belief is irrelevant per your parameters, this attempt to discredit my reading is beneath you.
And I guess you do not have any intentions of trying to discredit my presentation.
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 241 by purpledawn, posted 06-01-2010 1:54 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by purpledawn, posted 06-02-2010 7:35 AM ICANT has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 244 of 607 (562789)
06-01-2010 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by ICANT
06-01-2010 11:09 AM


Re: Do you care to Debate the Affirmed?
ICANT writes:
Do you mean like vegetation in Genesis 1:11, 12 on the third day before light on the fourth day in Genesis 1:14?
Not at all.
You see, this is why you cant simply read an english translation of the hebrew and think that the english translation is the 100% truth.
There are actually two hebrew words in Genesis that represent the english word 'light', The english translators use the word 'luminaries' in the 2nd instance.
The hebrew word on the first day is ohr but the hebrew word on day 4 is ma'ohr
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.
Much like when you switch on your lamp. You cannot see the light globe, but your room still lights up. If you take off the shade, then you'll see the source of light - the globe.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by ICANT, posted 06-01-2010 11:09 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by ICANT, posted 06-03-2010 6:44 PM Peg has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 245 of 607 (562790)
06-01-2010 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by ICANT
06-01-2010 12:20 PM


Re: Comparison of Gen 1 & 2
ICANT writes:
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.
what is a day (yom) in hebrew? The english language wasnt even thought of when the bible was written so why on earth would you want to use english to determine what the hebrews wrote. This is what I just dont understand.
If i told you a story in english, a language you understood, would you then try to find an indian or mexican translation of my story in order to try and understand my story???
Anyway, have fun in this thread...im done like a dinner!
Good luck with your book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by ICANT, posted 06-01-2010 12:20 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by ICANT, posted 06-03-2010 6:57 PM Peg has not replied

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


Message 246 of 607 (562804)
06-01-2010 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by ICANT
06-01-2010 3:46 PM


Re: Genesis 1
quote:
Adding there is no 'and' in the Hebrew text it was added by the Masoretes after the time of Christ. I appologize for not presenting the argument from the original text here as time is too precious to go into such discussions but they will be included in the book. I have mentioned some but not argued the points.
Another weak point.
In Message 1 you said: The Bible will be the final authority as that is what we will be discussing. Since there are several versions and you state in the OP that you will be using three different texts. (KJV, LXX, and Hebrew) In Message 23 you state that these three texts will be the final authority. They all can't be the final authority since, as you've noted, there are differences.
The word "and" is in the LXX. Does the majority rule?
quote:
Adding again there is no Hebrew words translated 'let there' the Hebrew word hayah is translated 'let there be'. The word hayah definition has been presented in several places. There are only 5 words in verse 3. One each for God, said, be,
light, light. Everything else is added. I will not go into a discussion of the language and construction of the Hebrew sentences here is
as it is too involved.
In Message 205, you told Straggler: I am glad you have no interest in debating Hebrew of the Ot which is a dead language with me.
But you bring it up for what reason? I don't see that it makes a difference. God said be light. The LXX and the KJV do say "Let there be light..." So either they are conveying what the Hebrew is saying or they are wrong.
quote:
Adding If it was not dark on one side and light on the other where was the division of the light?
We don't know. The story doesn't tell us. It isn't important to the story line.
quote:
Adding If they were not uplifted from the face of the waters where did they come from?
Again, not important to the story.
And God said Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters and let it divide the waters from the waters
And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament and it was so
The story doesn't tell us how God did it.
quote:
Adding The text does say the water was in one place and the land in one place. My Avatar is a modified copy of Pangea.
But it doesn't tell us how much was land and how much was water. Your avatar is a guess.
quote:
Adding This verse says plants that have their seed inside, upon the earth. What is upon the earth?
These things will be growing on the land.
quote:
Adding I keep missing the 'and' as it does not appear in the Hebrew text which I am allowed to use to support my position. I will make that clearer in my book. Thanks again.
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?
quote:
Adding There are definitions in the Hebrew Lexicons from which all in the KJV Bible was derived.
Question is the genealogy of a family the family history?
If yes why can't the heavens and the earth have a history of the day they were created as declared in Genesis 2:4?
Emphasis on family. History of the country or planet is not genealogy. Generations refers to people.
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.
In a modern reading it is difficult to say.

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 242 by ICANT, posted 06-01-2010 3:46 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by ICANT, posted 06-03-2010 7:31 PM purpledawn has replied

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


Message 247 of 607 (562853)
06-02-2010 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by ICANT
06-01-2010 4:20 PM


Re: Genesis 2
quote:
And I guess you do not have any intentions of trying to discredit my presentation.
Not by telling you your hair is the wrong color to understand. We are "affirming" what is written. The words are there for all to see regardless of what one believes.
quote:
Does it say the water came from the atmosphere?
OR
Does it say it went up from the earth?
Came up from the ground and fell back down. In modern reading, mist gives a visual of light rain, not something rising from the ground. Not really a major point. The point is the ground was watered. How a reader visualizes the action can vary.
quote:
You want me to be specific and I thank you for pointing out where I was not as specific as needed.
So why can't I ask you to be specific?
I'm asking for specifics when there is more than one meaning and when you are requiring a specific book written in a specific year. There's only two trees in the garden. Seriously.
quote:
If this story is what is claimed in Genesis 2:4 as being the history of the Heaven and the Earth in the day they were created.
When did that day end. For the end of day to come darkness must appear.
There is no darkness stated until Genesis 1:2.
There was no man and woman in existence at Genesis 1:2.
Therefore they died in the Day (light period) in which they were created.
I thought we were "affirming" what the KJV says, not speculating. The story of A&E does not tell us that time in the story passes differently than we understand time today. The reader will assume normal passage of time unless directed otherwise. That's how stories work. You can speculate all you want, but the story doesn't give us that information.
Per the OP you are affirming that there are two creation stories. I agree there are two stories, but I haven't seen support that the stories are to be interrelated.
quote:
Tell my wife that, Thursday will be our 53 wedding anniversary.
You and your wife aren't one body. You are a couple. You are legally joined together in marriage. The story doesn't say anything about legalities. It says cleave, which means join. Sex is definitely a joining and can result in one flesh (children). Marriage is also a joining and can result in one flesh (children) or two people functioning well together. As I said, it can be taken either way. There isn't a concrete meaning for us today.
Yes, 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"; but the next sentence is doubtful.
The narrator is the one who has the overall view, not Adam. It is doubtful that Adam at this time is telling us how things will be in the future. The narrator is telling the audience this is why men and women come together and then the narrator continues by saying "And they were both naked...". (I know, "and" isn't in the Hebrew text, but again, it is in the LXX and the KJV. Something in the Hebrew prompted the translators to use the word "and" or they are wrong.)

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 243 by ICANT, posted 06-01-2010 4:20 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 248 of 607 (563081)
06-03-2010 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by ICANT
06-01-2010 3:46 PM


The Real Creation Presented in Genesis
quote:
I need the discussion as it points out weak points in what I am presenting. All of this discussion is in preparation for fine tuning my Book "The Real Creation Presented in Genesis".
When you make comments like the one in Message 154, you negate the Bible as the final authority, and the specific texts you are using.
What the audience understood in those days God to be saying then did not make a bit of difference as it does not make a bit of difference today.
God said what He said even if Moses wrote it down wrong. Or if the scribes changed the wording around to suit their biases. Or as our new translations come out pretty regular now.
It's man's responsibility to get it right.
That is why Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to lead us and guide us in all truth.
When writing a book, no matter what position you take; be consistent. You've been inconsistent in this thread. That is a weakness.
When I proof papers or manuscripts, that is what I look for. Consistency in style and content.
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.
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?
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.
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.

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 242 by ICANT, posted 06-01-2010 3:46 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Iblis, posted 06-03-2010 4:15 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 255 by ICANT, posted 06-03-2010 8:06 PM purpledawn has replied

Iblis
Member (Idle past 3896 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 249 of 607 (563165)
06-03-2010 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by purpledawn
06-03-2010 8:00 AM


Re: The Real Creation Presented in Genesis
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by purpledawn, posted 06-03-2010 8:00 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by ICANT, posted 06-03-2010 6:15 PM Iblis has not replied
 Message 252 by purpledawn, posted 06-03-2010 6:44 PM Iblis has not replied

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


Message 250 of 607 (563183)
06-03-2010 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Iblis
06-03-2010 4:15 PM


Re: The Real Creation Presented in Genesis
Hi Iblis,
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.
That's close Iblis but not totally accurate.
I contend the day mentioned in Genesis 2:4 is a light period which started in the beginning with no darkness until the evening found in Genesis 1:2.
God called the light day. Genesis 1:5
The evening and the coming of the following light period was declared by God the first day.
That would mean there was a light period of undetermined length that was the light portion of the first day. This day did come to a close with evening found at Genesis 1:2.
Glad you do see what I am trying to say.
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 249 by Iblis, posted 06-03-2010 4:15 PM Iblis has not replied

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


Message 251 of 607 (563187)
06-03-2010 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Peg
06-01-2010 7:10 PM


Re: Do you care to Debate the Affirmed?
Hi Peg,
Where do you get your Hebrew words from?
'owr is the transliteration of the Hebrew word translated light in Genesis 1:3 and means:
1) light
a) light of day
b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars)
ma'owr is the transliteration of the Hebrew word translated light in Genesis 1:16 and means:
1) light, luminary
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.
The Hebrew construction mean light source in the second instance.
It does mean the Sun was made visible as whatever was blocking vision of the sun and moon had been competely removed.
But nowhere does it say the light source was created.
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 244 by Peg, posted 06-01-2010 7:10 PM Peg has not replied

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


Message 252 of 607 (563188)
06-03-2010 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Iblis
06-03-2010 4:15 PM


Re: The Real Creation Presented in Genesis
quote:
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.
It isn't supposed to fit into the Gen 1 story at all.

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 249 by Iblis, posted 06-03-2010 4:15 PM Iblis has not replied

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


Message 253 of 607 (563190)
06-03-2010 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Peg
06-01-2010 7:17 PM


Re: Comparison of Gen 1 & 2
Hi Peg,
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.
God called the light portion Day.
God called the dark portion Night.
God called the closing of a light period and the following beginning of a light period the first day.
yowm = a light period = day.
yowm = a light period and a dark period = the first day.
Since that is God's definition of yowm why do you question it?
I accept God's definition.
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 245 by Peg, posted 06-01-2010 7:17 PM Peg has not replied

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


Message 254 of 607 (563192)
06-03-2010 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by purpledawn
06-01-2010 9:30 PM


Re: Genesis 1
Hi PD,
purpledawn writes:
But it doesn't tell us how much was land and how much was water. Your avatar is a guess.
So is Pangea a guess by scientist.
But you can get an idea of what it looked like. It could have looked like any of thousands of islands that are the top of mountains sticking out of the water looks like today with the rest being covered with water.
No text gives the size, only that all visible land mass was in one place. Water was everywhere else.
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.
Glad you asked what the Hebrew says.
towlĕdah is the transliteration of the Hebrew word translated as generations in Genesis 2:4 which means:
1) genealogical list of one's descendants
2) one's contemporaries
3) course of history
You will notice that it includes course of history.
Therefore Genesis 2:4 claims to be the history of the Day the Lord God created the heaven and the earth.
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?
It appears in the texts because the Masoretis during the 7th to the 11 century AD added pointings to the Hebrew language that was translated in the texts we have today. Those do not exist in the Hebrew that the Bible was written in. It has no vowls.
A dead language means it is a language that is not spoken today but it does not mean it is not studied today.
purpledawn writes:
In a modern reading it is difficult to say.
Nothing is difficult to say. It may or may not be true. Truth remains the same regardless of what we say or believe.
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 246 by purpledawn, posted 06-01-2010 9:30 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by purpledawn, posted 06-05-2010 7:50 AM ICANT has replied

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


Message 255 of 607 (563200)
06-03-2010 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by purpledawn
06-03-2010 8:00 AM


Re: The Real Creation Presented in Genesis
Hi PD,
purpledawn writes:
When I proof papers or manuscripts, that is what I look for. Consistency in style and content.
I understand what goes into the composition of a thesis as I have written several.
But if I want to get information here many times I have to say things to provoke a response. This is research for material to me.
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.
They are two different stories as I have affirmed throughout this thread.
One story does not have anything to do with the other story.
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?
I am saying there are two separate stories which are unrelated in any way shape form or fashion and with an undetermined period of light between them.
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.
I didn't think I had been that fuzzy.
There is a story which begins in Genesis 1:1 in the beginning in which God created the Heaven and the Earth.
The history of that day begins in Genesis 2:4 which claims to be the genealogy/history of the Day the Lord God created the heaven and the earth.
This story does not end until you get to Genesis 4:24
There is no day or night periods mentioned in these verses. There is no age given for any of the people involved. There was two death recorded that of Able killed by Cain and a young man Lamech killed.
The second story begins in Genesis 1:2 with darkness and water covering all land mass. It ends in Genesis 2:3.
There is 2 creation events in these verses. One in verse 22 of whales and one in verse 27 of mankind.
Everything else had existed prior and was called forth from the water, the ground, and the seed on the ground.
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.
God is eternal and His message is eternal it does not change it has always been the same.
The original audience may have understood the text to say one thing another something else. All you have to do is check out all the new translations going on the market to find out a lot of people have different views of what is said.
I was in the book store the other day and picked up a new Bible and the second chapter through the fourth chapters of Genesis was missing. Chapter 1 stopped at Genesis 2:3.
I am sure there has been much that has been lost and much even changed by those who copied the texts over the years as they added their biases.
That does not mean that the truth is not available to us. It just means we need some higher assistance to find that Truth. That is the reason Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to lead and guide us in all Truth.
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 248 by purpledawn, posted 06-03-2010 8:00 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by purpledawn, posted 06-04-2010 5:22 AM ICANT has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024