|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
|
| |
| popoi | |
| Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
| Author | Topic: Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ICANT Member  Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Jay,
Let me state something about the word Adam first. adam is the transliteration of the Hebrew word that means mankind or man. Adam is not the proper name of a person thus the reason God called the mankind created in Genesis 1:27 male and female who he called adam. God called both of them adam.
Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. These people created in the image/likeness of God was created on day six of the story found in Genesis 1:2-27.
jaywill writes: Genesis 1:26 and 27 should be about initial man, the first man. Do you agree ? I will agree that the mankind created in Genesis 1:27 was the first people that was created in the image/likeness of God. These people are modern makind and was created some 6,000+ years ago. I cannot agree that they were the first mankind on earth. The man who was formed from the dust of the ground is never said to be created in the image/likeness of God.
Genesis 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. God formed him from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into that form and that form became a living being. Many confuse soul which is a living being with spirit which is the spiritual part of mankind that was created in Genesis 1:27 in the image/likeness of God. This man in Genesis 2:7 was created in the beginning before any other life form according to Genesis 2:4. Does Genesis 2:4 say it is the generations of the day the Lord God created the Heaven and the Earth? Generations is a family tree history. As used here it would be the history of the day God created the Heaven and the Earth.
Genesis 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, If this text says these things is the history of the day in which God created the Heaven and the Earth. The first man was the one formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 which took place in the light period that God created the Heaven and the Earth in.
jaywill writes: "Hence in this second account reference is made to other works of the Six Days only when they happen to be immediately connected with the main subject, and without any regard to the order in which they were performed" Mr. G.H Pember, is not the only one that holds that view. I have many brethren that hold that view. I just do not believe the scripture supports it. In 60 years no one has ever answered the questions I raise about the differences of the story in Genesis 1:2-27 and the story in Genesis 2:4-25. They always take the two stories and put them in a blender and try to make them into one story. With the one in chapter 1 being the original and the one in Chapter 2 being an amplification. The problem arises because there are some differences that cannot be reconciled no matter how hard you try. They are two different stories about two different events with an undetermined light period existence between the events. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi PD,
purpledawn writes: Your hypothesis that the A&E story takes place in Genesis 1:1 is not something you can assert without reasonable support. Exibit A:
Genesis 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 A&E story follows this statement. When did the Lord God create the Heaven and the Earth according to the text under discussion? Did the Heaven and the Earth exist at Genesis 1:2? Yes/No
purpledawn writes: The implication that man died before a dark period, is not in the text. That is your own hypothesis. Did the man exist at Genesis 1:2? Yes/No
purpledawn writes: By saying that these two verses had to be embellished takes your argument outside "affirming" just what is written. As written, Genesis 2:25-26 is a continuation of the A&E story. To even discuss these two verses takes the discussion outside of what I stated in the OP I was affirming.
purpledawn writes: quote:Sigh! Again, I expect better from you. kosmos I can still find no verse that kosmos is translated mankind. This reference says the word kosmos appears 187 times in the KJV Bible. It is translated world 186 times and translated adorning 1 time. Why don't you type mankind in the search area and see how many times it appears in the New Testament in Greek.
purpledawn writes: Now you accept science reality over what the writer was probably saying, but not the reality of what the writer was probably telling his audience. I agree with what the author probably said to his audience. I don't agree with what you think the author told his audience. There's a difference. What do you base your probably on? Peter said:
Peter writes: 2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. It sounds to me like Peter actually thought the heavens were going to be on fire and be dissolved with the elements melting with fervent heat. He went on to say but we are looking for new heavens and a new earth where righteousnees dwells. These verses is what I base my affirmations on concerning the universe and earth melting.
purpledawn writes: The text doesn't support this destruction. That is your hypothesis. Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. The man formed from the dust of the earth begat Abel and Cain who begat Enoch who begat Irad who begat Mehujael who begat Methusael who begat Lamech who begat Jabal and Jubal. Cain killed Abel and Lamech killed a young man. We have 8 generations of people represented in Genesis 4:16-20. Was any of these people in existence in Genesis 1:2? Yes/No
purpledawn writes: Don't confuse threads. We were talking about doctrines that your hypothesis impacts. Here is your original quote and my question.
purpledawn writes: Your theory breaks the connection between A&E's mistake and its supposed impact on mankind and the need for Christ. ICANT asks: Are you now claiming that the penalty of sin is inheritable? So I am not confusing the threads when I ask the question. Are you saying the penalty of sin is inheritable because you say the connection is broken? If the penalty of sin is not inheritable why would there have to be a connection? Sin had entered the universe and by sin death and separation from God was the result.
purpledawn writes: Your contention is that when the first set of mankind was destroyed that "sin" remained, existing on its own within the laws of nature. My contention is that sin is an act of disobedience. I further contend that the penalty of sin which is death was not removed from the universe with the passing of the descendents of the man formed from the dust of the ground.
purpledawn writes: So after the destruction of A&E and 9 generations of people, God created new people with the knowledge of good and evil and they were still created mortal. Since God chose to create man with good and evil inclinations and the ability to choose between them; it is God's will that man be able to choose. God created mankind in Genesis 1:27 in His image/likeness therefore they would know good and evil. God did give man a choice but only one choice He did not give him and either or choice. Mankind is separated from God because the first man disobeyed God. So the only choice mankind has is to accept the offer of God to restore them to the original condition when man was in the garden. Now once a person is born again and beome a child of God they have many choices with results based on those choices.
purpledawn writes: You've broken the connection between the disobedience of Adam and the purpose for Christ. You spin a great tale to get to trouble in River City, but the text doesn't support your hypothesis. You are no longer going by what is written in the text or by what reality supports. Here you go again tying sin to being inheritable. Which you have said is not so. Jesus came to remove the penalty for the disobedience of the man formed from the dust of the ground which was separation from God and death which is the penalty for sin. So with the death of the man formed from the dust of the ground in the day he ate of the forbidden fruit that penalty was not removed and still exists today. All mankind are separated from God and must die. Because of the sacrifice at Calvary man can be reunited with God and victory over death can be gained. You have made several assertions that the text does not support my position. But you failed to answer many questions that would clarify some of those things. Questions from Message 266.
Was the Heaven and the Earth created in Genesis 1:1? Yes/No Was it dark in Genesis 1:2? Yes/No Does Genesis 2:4 say, "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,"? Yes/No Does that verse say the Heaven and the Earth was created in the day? Does it say in the night?Yes/No I added Yes/No to each question to make it easier for you to answer. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
jaywill Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Let me state something about the word Adam first. adam is the transliteration of the Hebrew word that means mankind or man. Adam is not the proper name of a person thus the reason God called the mankind created in Genesis 1:27 male and female who he called adam. God called both of them adam. God calling male and the female Adam is not a problem at all.Christ is the second man or the last Adam. Christ and His Body the church are also called "the Christ". "For even as the body is one and has many members, yet all the members of the body, being many, are one body, so also is the Christ." (1 Cor. 12:12) Since the first man is a type of the second man, Adam and the female are called Adam and Christ and His counterpart are also refered to as "the Christ". And saying Adam is not also a proper name introduces more problems then it solves. Adam is the father of Seth according to Luke's geneology (3:38) - "Seth the son of Adam the son of God". As Seth is a proper name so is Adam and every other name in the geneology as also in Genesis 5 - "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years ..." (Gen. 5:4). See also First Chronicles 1:1,2 - "Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared ..."
Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. These people created in the image/likeness of God was created on day six of the story found in Genesis 1:2-27. But in Genesis 5:4 Adam is the father of Seth. And the man in Genesis 2 begets Seth after Abel is killed and Cain becomes a fugitive in chapter 3.
"And Adam knew his wife again; and she gave birth to a son and called his name Seth for, she said, God has appointed me another seed instead of Abel, because Cain slew him." (Gen. 4:25) There is no question that this is a seamless line of history to the man formed in chapter 2 of whom it says in 3:24 - 4:1:
"So He [Jehovah God] drove the man out, and at the east of the garden of Eden He placed the cherubim and a flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life. And the man knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain ..."
jaywill writes: Genesis 1:26 and 27 should be about initial man, the first man. Do you agree ? ICANT:I will agree that the mankind created in Genesis 1:27 was the first people that was created in the image/likeness of God. Then that must be the first man.
These people are modern makind and was created some 6,000+ years ago. I cannot agree that they were the first mankind on earth. The man who was formed from the dust of the ground is never said to be created in the image/likeness of God. What do you do with Genesis 5:1 which tells us that the man Adam who fathered Seth was made in the likeness of God ?
"This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created Adam, He made him in the likeness of God. Male and female He created them and He blessed them (as in Genesis 1:27) ... and called their name Adam, on the day they were created. And Adam lived one hundred thirty years and begot a son in his likeness according to his image, and he called his name Seth." (Gen. 5:1-3) This passage does say Adam, the father of Seth (who is the Adam of Genesis 2) was made in the likeness of God. And the phrase "Male and female He created them" links this Adam of chapter 2 to the man in Genesis 1:26,27.
Genesis 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. God formed him from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into that form and that form became a living being. Many confuse soul which is a living being with spirit which is the spiritual part of mankind that was created in Genesis 1:27 in the image/likeness of God. I do not have this confusion. You're speaking with me now.
This man in Genesis 2:7 was created in the beginning before any other life form according to Genesis 2:4. This may be only an apparent problem. You have two prophetic utterances. And the second one may be from a different point of view. I do admit that trying to harmonize the two accounts may be very difficult. But I think that is deliberate because we human beings are experts at missing the point. I am willing to bare the embaressment of not being able to construct a 100% fool proof harmonization. While it presents some problems to the natural mind making the two accounts refer to two different men leads to more problems. For instance, Genesis 5:1-3 confirms that this Adam the father of Seth was made in the likeness of God. Saying as you have that the man in Genesis 1:26,27 is in image and likeness of God but the man of Genesis 2 is not, is just falling into error. First Corinthians 11:7 also refers to the man as "the image and glory of God." And it seems that Paul has in mind not just man as in Genesis 1 but also in Genesis 2. For in the very next verse he writes "For man is not out of woman, but woman out of man." (v.8) There is no question that he has before him Genesis 2 as well as Genesis 1. There is no question that he is refering to man created in the image of God in chapter 1 as well as Adam out from whom a woman was built from his rib. I think a dangerous assumption of your argument is that chapter one and chapter two should say everything in the same way exactly. Can you see the weakness of arguing that Adam of Genesis two is not said to be in the likeness/image of God ?
Does Genesis 2:4 say it is the generations of the day the Lord God created the Heaven and the Earth? Generations is a family tree history. As used here it would be the history of the day God created the Heaven and the Earth. I'll come back to this point perhaps, latter.
Genesis 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, If this text says these things is the history of the day in which God created the Heaven and the Earth. The first man was the one formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 which took place in the light period that God created the Heaven and the Earth in. I won't comment on this yet because I don't yet fully follow this.
jaywill writes: "Hence in this second account reference is made to other works of the Six Days only when they happen to be immediately connected with the main subject, and without any regard to the order in which they were performed" Mr. G.H Pember, is not the only one that holds that view. I have many brethren that hold that view. I just do not believe the scripture supports it. In 60 years no one has ever answered the questions I raise about the differences of the story in Genesis 1:2-27 and the story in Genesis 2:4-25. I think the problem is trying to harmonize them totally. Because you can't you introduce concepts as a cure which I think are far worse then what they are designed to rectify. When the skeptics gleefully point out that the two accounts seem not to mesh together, I am inclined to agree up to a point and bare that embaressment. I take both accounts as the word of God, as the truth. And I am suspicious that it is intentionally evasive on the details that we would like to see consistent. We humans glory in being able to arrive at commonality from diversity. We are proud of our ability to derive one law from different effects. And the Holy Spirit does not always play along with this human tendency.
They always take the two stories and put them in a blender and try to make them into one story. With the one in chapter 1 being the original and the one in Chapter 2 being an amplification. Maybe we should not try to do this. Maybe we should not sacrifice the obvious truth for the sake of 100% harmonization. Jesus is recorded as resurrecting in a physical body. On the other hand He appeared in a locked room as if to just materialize out of nothing. If I argue that that was a different Jesus I may think I have solved some contradictions. But I have actually now created greater problems. I'd rather trust both records without feeling I have to reconcile them to the last degree. Christ rose and ate fish before them and He became a life giving Spirit too (1 Cor. 15:45) and came into a locked room without the use of a door or window. Likewise, of course the man in Genesis 2 is the man in Genesis 1.
The problem arises because there are some differences that cannot be reconciled no matter how hard you try. So let's just admit that if we have to. We can speculate imperfectly. That is just our imperfect interpretations. It seems that the two accounts are linked together in Genesis 5.
They are two different stories about two different events with an undetermined light period existence between the events. What is this about a light period ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3477 days)  Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:No. Genesis 1:1 simply says that long ago God created everything we know. (They knew anyway) Genesis 1:2 begins the Priestly writers story of God creating everything we know (they knew) with a temple-as-cosmos motif.
Because Genesis I contains the essence of Priestly knowledge in a most concentrated form, and this knowledge was esoteric, the Temple traditions represented by P are never explicitly communicated in these materials.37 Stephen A. Geller has observed that P more than any other biblical author, reveals what he has to say by how he says it.38 Instead of openly verbalizing his theological concepts, P employs a method of ‘literary indirection’ through placement, juxtaposition, and subtle allusion to impress these unarticulated concepts on the structure of the Pentateuch. Employing the tools of literary analysis has allowed scholars to shed light on a number of these ‘esoteric’ themes.39 Beginning with Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig, scholars have discerned P’s remarkable use of intratextuality between Genesis 1 (the creation account) and Exodus 25-31 (instructions for the building of the Tabernacle) to suggest a correspondence between the creation of the world and the building of the sanctuary.40 The widespread ancient Near Eastern (ANE) temple-as-cosmos motif undoubtedly lay behind this intratextuality.41 In Exod. 25-31 God in seven speeches instructs Moses regarding the construction of the Tabernacle and its furnishings as well as the priestly vestments. Peter Kearny argued that these seven speeches correspond verbally and conceptually to the seven days of creation of Genesis I. quote:No quote:Remember that. quote:It isn't translated as mankind, it refers to mankind. You apparently didn't read the link for kosmos. 5. The inhabitants of the earth, men, the human race. Romans 5:12: of evils coming into existence among men and beginning to exert their power quote:No, Genesis 4 comes after Genesis 1 and continues on with descendants in Genesis 5 until we get to Noah and his sons. There is no break for destruction. The first paragraph of Genesis 5 is the Redactor's way of associating the A&E story with the creation of man on day six.
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man in the likeness of God made he him. Male and female created he them and blessed them and called their name Adam in the day when they were created. He already put the A&E story where he wanted it. If you disagree, show where the text mentions the destruction and flooding of the planet.
quote:So God was unable or unwilling to remove sin and death from the "universe" before creating new humans and maintained separation due to the first humans mistake. This means God has no control over death in your hypothesis and your hypothesis does make the penalty of sin inherited. In your hypothesis, God made the choice to create mankind with good and evil inclinations and he created them mortal. He chose to continue the penalty on the new creation. While sin is not inherited, descendants can suffer from the consequences of their parents choices. This should not be the case in your hypothesis since God created new people. They aren't descendants of the first man. Your hypothesis does make the penalty inherited. The new people inherited the penalty due to no fault of their own. God made them that way. Your personification of sin and death as things that can exist or infect the world around us regardless of what God wants, is ludicrous. You've left God powerless. If he doesn't have the power to clean death and sin out of the "universe" way back then, then the death of his son isn't going to give him any more power to control sin and death. If God doesn't have control over sin and death, then how can we? How can his Holy Spirit give us control, when he himself doesn't have control?
quote:That's not what your hypothesis presents. By destroying the first creation, God had the chance to restore man to the original condition. He chose not to. As I said above, if he couldn't do it then, why believe he can do it now? quote:So the supposed death of 9 generations of people wasn't enough to pay the "penalty". Sad. quote:Agreeing that those are the words in the KJV doesn't support your interpretation of them. Agreeing that those are the words in the KJV doesn't support your hypothesis that the A&E story took place in Genesis 1:1. As I said before, we don't disagree on what words are in the KJV, which is all you can positively assert. This isn't really about what the words are written, it's about where you are relocating the A&E story regardless of where the Redactor placed the story. So please stop repeating the text questions as if responding yes, means anything. The text does not say there was a destruction of A&E's descendants until we get to Noah and the flood. You haven't shown text that supports the destruction of the first people. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3477 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:The Redactor wanted the stories to be viewed that way. They are two different stories, not written to compliment each other. They have different purposes for their audiences. The older A&E story is more of a children's just so story. The lesson is the point, not so much the details. People make too much out of it. The newer one was a set up for the Sabbath. Again, the details, not so much the point. You're over thinking it. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Jay,
jaywill writes: Then that must be the first man. Why must the man created in the image/likeness of God have to be the first man?
jaywill writes: What do you do with Genesis 5:1 which tells us that the man Adam who fathered Seth was made in the likeness of God ? I believe the man created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27 had a firstborn son named Seth when he was 130 years old.That is why you have the genealogy of Seth. I believe the man formed from the dust of the earth had a firstborn son named Cain. That is why you have his genealogy given in Genesis chapter 4.
jaywill writes: "This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created Adam, He made him in the likeness of God. Male and female He created them and He blessed them (as in Genesis 1:27) ... and called their name Adam, on the day they were created. And Adam lived one hundred thirty years and begot a son in his likeness according to his image, and he called his name Seth." (Gen. 5:1-3) This passage does say Adam, the father of Seth (who is the Adam of Genesis 2) was made in the likeness of God. And the phrase "Male and female He created them" links this Adam of chapter 2 to the man in Genesis 1:26,27. No it does not. It does declare that the man created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27 had a son named Seth whose genealogy is given in the following verses. Since genealogies are of the first born son this was his first born son.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Was this man created on day six after all other life forms? Yes/No
Genesis 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, 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 this man created before any other form of life? Yes/No In case you need the other scriptures they begin with verse 8 and go through 25.
jaywill writes: I do not have this confusion. You're speaking with me now. Good then you understand that there is no text that says this man is formed in the image/likeness of God.
jaywill writes: I do admit that trying to harmonize the two accounts may be very difficult. But I think that is deliberate because we human beings are experts at missing the point. Maybe it would be easier to just take what the text says rather than try to make it fit what we have been told it says.
1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. I will agree that verse 7 would be referring to the man created in the image/likeness of God. Genesis 1:27 I will also agree that verse 8 and 9 are referring to the man formed from the dust of the ground. Genesis 2:7 I can not agree that because he refers to both men that he is referring to only one man. The text does not say or infer that. Although I can see how someone that believed they were one and the same could jump to that conclusion.
jaywill writes: I think a dangerous assumption of your argument is that chapter one and chapter two should say everything in the same way exactly. I don't expect them to say the same things as they are two different stories of two separate events.
jaywill writes: What is this about a light period ? God determined what a day is and what a night is.
Genesis 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 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 light period and the dark period the first day. Moses tell us Genesis 1:1 took place in a day.
Genesis 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, He says "in the day" that means He did not do it in the night or dark portion so it had to be done in the light portion of a day. Which we find that light portion had ended at Genesis 1:2. A couple of questions for clarification. Is the universe and earth old? OR Is the universe and earth 6,000+ years old? 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi PD,
purpledawn writes: The Redactor wanted the stories to be viewed that way. Let me get this straight. Whoever wrote the two stories wanted them viewed as two events. The older story is given in Genesis 2:4-25. The story in Genesis 1:2-2:3 was to set up a Sabbath. Is that summation correct? 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi PD,
You answer NO to the question did "Did the Heaven and the Earth exist at Genesis 1:2". Then you make the following statement.
purpledawn writes: Genesis 1:1 simply says that long ago God created everything we know We know the universe exists, we know that the earth exists.We know humans exist, we know plants exist, we know that creatures and fowl exist. You see I believe what you said but you don't. I believe that in Genesis 1:1 God created everything that is. That is what I have affirmed took place in Genesis 1:1 and the history given of that day as declared in Genesis 2:4.
purpledawn writes: quote:It isn't translated as mankind, it refers to mankind. You apparently didn't read the link for kosmos. But I did read the definition of kosmos. I also checked my personal Library lexicons. I find no place it was ever translated mankind. It may have that possibility but it was never translated as such. Now if you disagree with all the scholars I would like to know what you base that disagreement on.
purpledawn writes: 5. The inhabitants of the earth, men, the human race.
Romans 5:12: of evils coming into existence among men and beginning to exert their power In the blue letter bible reference I can find no translation of Romans 5:12 that you quote above the closest is the New Living Translation perversion which reads:
Rom 5:12 When Adam sinned, sin entered the entire human race. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned. The Greek text does not support this translation.
purpledawn writes: No, Genesis 4 comes after Genesis 1 and continues on with descendants in Genesis 5 until we get to Noah and his sons. There is no break for destruction But you say this is the older story than the one in Genesis 1:2-2:3 that set up the Sabbath. That does not compute.
purpledawn writes: The first paragraph of Genesis 5 is the Redactor's way of associating the A&E story with the creation of man on day six I agree that whoever wrote what is listed as chapter 5 verse 1-3 was stating this is the generations of the man created in Genesis 1:27.
purpledawn writes: If you disagree, show where the text mentions the destruction and flooding of the planet. That verse does not exist. But this verse does exist.
Genesis 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, This verse plainly states the heaven and the earth was created in a day. (A day is a light period or a light period and a dark period combined). It also says the following things occurred that day. Man was formed from the dust of the ground as the first life form. Genesis 2:7 God planted a garden. Genesis 2:8. God made trees to grow out of the ground. Genesis 2:9 God formed every creature and fowl out of the ground. Genesis 2:19 God formed woman from a rib He took from the man. Genesis 2:22 If you disagree with this story give the text that refutes it.
purpledawn writes: So God was unable or unwilling to remove sin and death from the " He did. He just did not do it according to your time table.
purpledawn writes: While sin is not inherited, descendants can suffer from the consequences of their parents choices. You can suffer from other peoples choices other than your parents.
urpledawn writes: Your hypothesis does make the penalty inherited. The new people inherited the penalty due to no fault of their own. God made them that way The penalty is not inherited. It is a fact as the penalty exists because the man formed from the dust of the ground ate the fruit.Man is separated from God. (God kicked man out of His garden) This disobedience brought death into existence. purpledawn writes: So the supposed death of 9 generations of people wasn't enough to pay the "penalty". Sad. That paid their penalty. But it did not pay yours. You are under the same penalty and are condemned already unless you have accepted God's offer of a free full pardon.
purpledawn writes: . Agreeing that those are the words in the KJV doesn't support your hypothesis that the A&E story took place in Genesis 1:1 Show me where Genesis 2:4 does not support my position that it is the generations of the Heaven and the Earth in the DAY the Lord God created the heaven and the earth.
purpledawn writes: The text does not say there was a destruction of A&E's descendants until we get to Noah and the flood. You haven't shown text that supports the destruction of the first people. The man was told the day he ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he would die. The light had ceased to shine in Genesis 1:2. That man nor any of his descendants existed as the earth was covered with water. So the text supports that they did not exist when the day ended in darkness. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
jaywill Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Why must the man created in the image/likeness of God have to be the first man? Because that in Genesis 1:26,27 was the CREATION of man.
"And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness ..." (1:26) ... And God CREATED man in His own image; in the image of God He CREATED him ..." (v.27) Do you have anything from Scripture stating that before this creation on the 6th day God already created man not in the image of God ?
jaywill writes: What do you do with Genesis 5:1 which tells us that the man Adam who fathered Seth was made in the likeness of God ? I believe the man created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27 had a firstborn son named Seth when he was 130 years old.That is why you have the genealogy of Seth. But you believe that that man is not the man of Genesis chapter 2 formed from the dust of the earth ? Do you believe that the man who knew his wife and begat Cain (Gen. 4:1) is the man who was driven out of the garden of Eden (Gen. 3:23,24) ? Yes? No? Do you believe that the man driven out of the garden of Eden was the man formed with the dust of the earth in Genesis 2:7 ? Yes? No? The same father of Cain is the father of Seth. And that man was created in the likeness of God (Gen. 5:1). He and his wife were Mr. and Mrs. Adam if you will. (They were the Adam family).
"Male and female He created them, ... and called their name Adam" (5:2) In the next breath and in a seamless manner this man "Mr. Adam" if you will, lived 130 years and begot Seth (v.3)[/b] The flow of history is from Adam "made ... in the likenesss of God" to "... and begot a son in his likeness according to his image, and he called his name Seth" (5:3)
I believe the man formed from the dust of the earth had a firstborn son named Cain. That is why you have his genealogy given in Genesis chapter 4. The father of Cain (4:1) knew his wife a subsequent time and also fathered Seth (4:25). It says that "Adam knew his wife AGAIN; and she gave birth to a son and called his name Seth; for, [she said], God has appointed me ANOTHER seed instead of Abel, because Cain slew him." (4:25 my emphasis) Adam (Gen 5:1) who was "made in the likeness of God" fathered Abel, Cain, and Seth.
jaywill writes: "This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created Adam, He made him in the likeness of God. Male and female He created them and He blessed them (as in Genesis 1:27) ... and called their name Adam, on the day they were created. And Adam lived one hundred thirty years and begot a son in his likeness according to his image, and he called his name Seth." (Gen. 5:1-3) This passage does say Adam, the father of Seth (who is the Adam of Genesis 2) was made in the likeness of God. And the phrase "Male and female He created them" links this Adam of chapter 2 to the man in Genesis 1:26,27. No it does not. It does declare that the man created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27 had a son named Seth whose genealogy is given in the following verses. Since genealogies are of the first born son this was his first born son. Genealogies skip people in the Hebrew Bible. And the fact that Genesis 5:3 omits Abel and Cain does not mean that this Adam was not also their father.
Genesis 4:25 proves that the father of Seth knew his wife "AGAIN" and that "ANOTHER" descendent was the result "instead of Abel" who had been murdered by his brother. The dad of Seth was made in the likeness of God (5:1). And prior to him living 130 years to father Seth, he and his wife had been pronounced by God as "Adam".
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Was this man created on day six after all other life forms? Yes/No
Yes, as far as the creatures we are told who had been made or created on previous days. According to the account in chapter one, the seer or revelator wants the reader to see man as at the top of the pinnacle of all animals created on previous days. God had a special conference. And with this creature man He alone is seen saying "Let Us make man in Our image ..." A more intimate involvement.
Genesis 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, 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 this man created before any other form of life? Yes/No I don't know. The sequence of the events may be general. And the theme of man's unique place among the other animals is AGAIN highlighted. You see, in both cases all of the other creatures are spiritually and metaphysically BENEATH man. The manner in which this is stressed is not the same. And it is difficult to harmanize the mechanics of it. Both accounts stress that on the pinnacle of life's pyramid (so to speak) man occupies the topmost position. That is not an insignificant revelation for human beings to know. And if there are descrepancies in WHEN and WHEN NOT the other animals were made or created, I think God in His wisdom is hinting that it makes no difference. I said, we are experts at missing the point. Do not strain out a gnat and swallow a camel. Subtly the focus changes from man to all the other ANIMALS ... "But WHEN did God make the animals? Before Man or After Man or a little bit of each. We just don't understand." My sense is that it is beside the main point. MAN is in the image of God. And MAN is at the top of all other created lives on the earth. His having dominion over them proves this. And his designating names for them ALSO proves this. Why did Paul caution Timothy not to get caught up in "endless geneologies" but to pay attention to God's economy which is in faith ? (1 Timothy 1:4) God's economy has to do with receiving God in Christ as divine life. Had God wanted to be clear about when the animals were made whether before or after the first man, perhaps He would have made both chapter one and chapter two tell the same story in the same way. He did not. And I choose believe both accounts as God's speaking.
jaywill writes: I do not have this confusion. You're speaking with me now. Good then you understand that there is no text that says this man is formed in the image/likeness of God. Genesis 5:1 says Adam was made in the likeness of God. And the flow of history seamlessly proceeds to identify that Adam as the father of Seth.
jaywill writes: I do admit that trying to harmonize the two accounts may be very difficult. But I think that is deliberate because we human beings are experts at missing the point. Maybe it would be easier to just take what the text says rather than try to make it fit what we have been told it says. I do not find your way of looking at the matter "easier" by any means. I think the price paid for trying to figure if every single existing animal preceeded or followed Adam is not worth the alternative intepretation you propose. I do not shy away from independent thinking. I judge the concepts on their merits for the far greater part. And my reasons for questioning your view have been the result of my own examination of the verses and comparing them to your thoughts. And there is no shame in benefitting from the labors in the Bible of predecessors.
1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. I will agree that verse 7 would be referring to the man created in the image/likeness of God. Genesis 1:27 It seems pretty obvious to me that Paul is uniting the two chapters to build his case. There is no hint that he regards the passages as refering to different instances of the first man created.
I will also agree that verse 8 and 9 are referring to the man formed from the dust of the ground. Genesis 2:7 I can not agree that because he refers to both men that he is referring to only one man. The text does not say or infer that. Although I can see how someone that believed they were one and the same could jump to that conclusion. I think the strength of his case rests upon the fact that he is talking about the initial creation of man and the initial creation of woman. If you reason that one instances is the initial creation of human beings but the other is not, I think that confuses the issue and weakens his teaching.
jaywill writes: I think a dangerous assumption of your argument is that chapter one and chapter two should say everything in the same way exactly. I don't expect them to say the same things as they are two different stories of two separate events. jaywill writes:What is this about a light period ? God determined what a day is and what a night is. Genesis 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.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 light period and the dark period the first day. Moses tell us Genesis 1:1 took place in a day. Genesis 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, He says "in the day" that means He did not do it in the night or dark portion so it had to be done in the light portion of a day. Which we find that light portion had ended at Genesis 1:2. A couple of questions for clarification. Is the universe and earth old? OR Is the universe and earth 6,000+ years old? God Bless,
I do not believe we are told how long ago "In the beginning" was. And I understand an unspecified interval of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. I believe in an ancient history of the being who became Satan and a pre-Adamic world of some kind. I do not insist that the universe came into existence 6,000 years ago according to Ussher's famous chronology. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Jay,
jaywill writes: Do you believe that the man who knew his wife and begat Cain (Gen. 4:1) is the man who was driven out of the garden of Eden (Gen. 3:23,24) ? Yes? No? Yes
jaywill writes: Do you believe that the man driven out of the garden of Eden was the man formed with the dust of the earth in Genesis 2:7 ? Yes? No Yes
jaywill writes: The same father of Cain is the father of Seth. Not the Seth mentioned in Genesis 5:3. His father was only 130 years old. Since Moses did not divide Genesis into chapters and verses what makes you think Genesis 4:25 and 26 belong in chapter 4? They are added either as an afterthought or they don't belong with chapter 4 but with chapter 5.
jaywill writes: "Male and female He created them, ... and called their name Adam" (5:2) In the next breath and in a seamless manner this man "Mr. Adam" if you will, lived 130 years and begot Seth (v.3) The flow of history is from Adam "made ... in the likenesss of God" to "... and begot a son in his likeness according to his image, and he called his name Seth" (5:3)
The text says:
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
This verse says God created mankind in his own image male and female at the same time. Verse 31 tells us this happened on the sixth day.
Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; This tells us the man created in Genesis 1:27 in the likeness of God has the following generations. It does not say the generations of Adam in the day he was formed from the dust of the ground in the image of God.
Genesis 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. This tells us they both were called Adam which translated is mankind.
jaywill writes: Adam (Gen 5:1) who was "made in the likeness of God" fathered Abel, Cain, and Seth. Genesis chapter 5 does not mention Abel or Cain. If Cain had been mentioned his genealogy would have been used as he would have been the first born.
jaywill writes: Genesis 4:25 proves that the father of Seth knew his wife "AGAIN" and that "ANOTHER" descendent was the result "instead of Abel" who had been murdered by his brother. It only proves that someone did a little doctoring of the text. The man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 and the Man created in the image of God in Genesis 1:27 can not be the same man. The man in Genesis 2:7 was the first life form on earth. The man in Genesis 1:27 was the last creature God created, on day six. If you want them to be the same then explain how that is possible.
jaywill writes: The dad of Seth was made in the likeness of God (5:1). And prior to him living 130 years to father Seth, he and his wife had been pronounced by God as "Adam". Yes on day six after all other life forms. Since he was created in the image of God he had to be the man created in Genesis 1:27.
jaywill writes: Yes, as far as the creatures we are told who had been made or created on previous days. OK.
jaywill writes: He did not. And I choose believe both accounts as God's speaking. Then why did you answer the question with I don't know? And then give me a lot of information from your imagination trying to convince me that it didn't make any difference.
jaywill writes: Genesis 5:1 says Adam was made in the likeness of God. And the flow of history seamlessly proceeds to identify that Adam as the father of Seth. Yes we can agree that the man in Genesis 5:1 who was made in the likeness of God had a son named Seth that his descendents are listed in chapter 5. The only man that was made in the image of God was created in Genesis 1:27.
jaywill writes: There is no hint that he regards the passages as referring to different instances of the first man created. He does refer to the man created in the likeness of God. He also refers to the man who had a rib taken out and a woman made from that rib. Paul was just making a statement of fact not telling a story.
jaywill writes: If you reason that one instances is the initial creation of human beings but the other is not, I think that confuses the issue and weakens his teaching. They are both unique. The story in Genesis 2:4-25 is about a man formed from the dust of the ground who God breathed the breath of life into and he became a living being. Vegetation followed him and the creatures and fowls and then woman made from his rib. This man was placed in a garden and forbidden to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He disobeyed and was banished from God's presence. He died that same day or God lied. The story in Genesis 1:2-27 has all vegetation, all creatures and fowls called forth either from the seed in the ground or the ground except great whales and mankind who were created. This man was told to replenish the earth and that he could eat from every tree. None was forbidden. This man was never placed in a garden.
jaywill writes: I do not believe we are told how long ago "In the beginning" was. And I understand an unspecified interval of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. I believe in an ancient history of the being who became Satan and a pre-Adamic world of some kind. I do not insist that the universe came into existence 6,000 years ago according to Ussher's famous chronology. I thought I knew your position from other posts and that is why I am wondering why you are having so much trouble with what I am presenting. Lets name the man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 Bill. Lets name the man created in the image of God in Genesis 1:27 Jim. A very long time ago in the beginning whenever that was God created the Heaven and the Earth. In the DAY (light period) God created the Heaven and the Earth He formed Bill from the dust of the ground, breathed into his nostrils and he became a living being. God then planted a garden and made fruit bearing trees to grow out of the ground. We are then told of a river that flowed from Eden and watered the garden after which it split into 4 rivers to water the land. It did not rain but a mist came up from the ground and watered the ground. God then formed all the creatures and fowl from the ground. Bill then named all those creatures. Naming 1 every 25 seconds he would have been 100 years old before he finished naming them all. God then took a rib from Bill and made a woman. Bill and this woman lived in God's beautiful estate with only one rule to obey to stay there. Bill had been commanded not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The woman was deceived by the serpent which Satan used to do the job with. Bill willfully ate the fruit. God kicked Bill and the woman out of His beautiful estate and they were separated from God. And under the penalty of death. They had two sons the eldest named Cain and the younger named Abel. Abel offer a sacrifice to God and God accepted it but when Cain offered his sacrifice God did not accept it and it made Cain very man. He decided if he killed Abel God would have to accept his offering. There is then the generations of Cain given with a city being built and named after Cain's first born Enoch. Then the rest of the generations are given. If you check you will find there are no ages given for any of these people. During this period of light there is much vegetation that grew as God was preparing Earth for modern man. There had to be much peat created to form all the gas, oil and coal we have in the earth today. During this period of light God was still in the creating business which the Bible does not tell us about but science does. Science tells us there was several events that took place that just about all life forms went extinct. Then all of a sudden we had many new life forms. These lasted until another event where almost all life forms went extinct. Then all of a sudden many life forms existed. All the time more surface being added to the earth by these events. Since there was no seas on earth in this first creation water had to be added in this light period and was. This covers your pre-adamic race and provides light for all the vegetation to grow that produced our gas, oil and coal. Then we come to the evening we find at Genesis 1:2 when darkness was over the face of the waters that covered the earth. How did it get in this condition God did not tell us. There has been much speculation but that is all that it is. The text tells us there is no visible light on the earth there could be many explanations for that as it has happened several times according to science. In fact the last time they give is 65 million years ago. Some scientist say the sun did not shine for some 7 years because of the dust cloud that was kicked up when earth was struck by a meteorite. Anyway God said let there be light and there was light. God then divided the light and darkness calling the light day and the darkness night. He then concluded with the light of the following morning as the first day. So we have a light period of undetermined existence and a dark period that when concluded was the first day as declared by God. During the next light period God formed a firmament and divided the water that were above the firmament from the waters which were under the firmament. This area our birds and airplanes fly in today God called heaven. It is our atmosphere. This light period which ended with evening and the following night which ended with the morning of day three was declared the second day. During this light period God said the waters were to gather in one place and dry land to appear and it was so. Something like my Avatar. The dry land God called earth and the water He called sea. God then said for the earth to bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: The earth then brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: The seed was in the earth and brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: at God's command. All these were full grown and bearing fruit. This light period closed with the evening bringing darkness which was ended by the light period of day four. This was declared the third day. God then made the light from the stars visible from earth. God also made the sun and moon visible from earth God decreed they would rule over the day and the night. This light period closed with evening bring darkness which was ended by the light period of day five. This was declared the fourth day. God then commanded the waters to bring forth the swimming creatures and fowl that fly. All these came forth after their kind. The only thing created was great whales in verse 21 every thing else came forth after it kind. That would have been the kind that was on earth or in the water prior to Genesis 1:2. This light period closed with evening bringing darkness which was ended by the light period of day six. This day was declared the fifth day. During this light period God called the beast of the earth after his kind and every cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind. Then God created mankind in His image and gave them dominion over the other creatures. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. God blessed them and said unto them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." And God said, "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." No fruit that they could not eat. This light period closed with evening bringing darkness which ended with the light of day seven. This day was declared the sixth day. During this light period God ceased from His creating. And is not creating at the present. He will in the future. So we now have a straight through story with your pre-adamic race all the way through the creation of modern man who was created in the image of God in Genesis 1:27, some 6,000+ years ago. And there is no Gap to be found. We have existence until God declares the first day. Man comes along and creates his concept of time which is based on the rotation of the earth in relation with the sun. When this universe and earth melts with fervent heat and God resumes creating by creating a New Heaven and a New Earth in which there will be no seas and no need for the sun and moon. We will then have existence again. ETERNAL ............. TIME.............EXISTENCE Time is just a little speck in eternal existence that we have the privilege to exist and get prepared for eternal existence with God. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3477 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I do believe what I said, the problem is you have a different view. You seem to be treating Genesis 1 as a journal and it isn't. You aren't understanding what I'm saying. Genesis 1:1 is an opening sentence that puts the audience in the right time frame for the story that follows and tells the subject of the story. Oral stories are updated through the years to fit with the culture of the time. Once a story is put to paper, it is stuck in time unless revised. Here is an example of the creation story updated in the early 1900's.
World stories retold for modern boys and girls In the beginning, long, long ago, God created this wonderful world and all things in it. At first there was no earth, no sun, no moon or starts, no grass or trees, no seas or sky. This great round ball, on which we live, was nothing but a great cloud of mist without shape or size. Everywhere there was great darkness. God was living in his home in heaven, and said, "Let there be light." So light was the first wonderful thing God made. ... Still, there was no man no woman, nor any little child anywhere to enjoy what God had made. So God created a man and called his name Adam. God placed him in a large garden called Eden, filled with beautiful and useful things--rivers of water to water it, gold and precious stones, trees good for food, animals, birds, and fishes. Adam gave names to all the animals. But among them all there was not one to talk with him. So God made a beautiful companion for Adam and called her name Eve. This first man and woman lived together very happily in this beautiful Garden of Eden, caring for the flowers and fruit, watching the animals, loving each other, and talking with God, their Creator and Friend. The story reflects what the Christians of the time felt was important concerning creation and the fall. The authors of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 each had their own purpose for their stories. The Redactor had his own purpose for putting the two stories together in the order that he did. You have your own reason for why you need the A&E story to fit in Genesis 1:1. Peg has her reasons for needing the word day to mean an age. I have my reasons for trying to understand what the original authors were telling their audience. If you want to update the story to fit with current knowledge, then just update the story and acknowledge that you're revising the story to reflect current knowledge and beliefs. Don't try to pretend that the text or the original authors support your revision.
quote:I said (and you quoted it) kosmos wasn't translated as mankind, but refers to mankind as shown in the 5th definition. That was not a translation of Romans 5:12. It referred to the meaning of kosmos as used in Romans 5:12. Look at the Thayer's Lexicon Help section. ICANT writes:
My response was based on how the text is presented as a whole, not based on when the stories were individually written. As I've said, the Redactor put them in that order for a reason. The man formed from the dust of the earth begat Abel and Cain who begat Enoch who begat Irad who begat Mehujael who begat Methusael who begat Lamech who begat Jabal and Jubal. Cain killed Abel and Lamech killed a young man. We have 8 generations of people represented in Genesis 4:16-20. Was any of these people in existence in Genesis 1:2? Yes/No
purpledawn writes: No, Genesis 4 comes after Genesis 1 and continues on with descendants in Genesis 5 until we get to Noah and his sons. There is no break for destruction But you say this is the older story than the one in Genesis 1:2-2:3 that set up the Sabbath. That does not compute. When looking at the stories individually and when they were written, I've also said that the stories weren't written to compliment or support each other. They have different purposes. As the Priestly story is written, the answer is still, No. Like I said, it isn't a journal.
quote:That's not what I'm saying, so you aren't agreeing with me. Genesis 5 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man in the likeness of God made he him. Male and female created he them and blessed them and called their name Adam in the day when they were created. By combining the name "Adam" and that mankind was made male and female, the Redactor is attempting to connect the A&E story with the sixth day of creation. The birth of Seth is at the end of the A&E story and the Redactor continues with Seth in the genealogy. Cain's descendants are already listed in the story.
quote:No, Genesis 2:4 is not saying that everything was done in a single day. The use of yom in that sentence is not literal. The "Days" Of Creation In Genesis 1: Literal "Days" Or Figurative "Periods/Epochs" Of Time Let us note these criteria as they are employed in Genesis 2:4. The noun yom is joined to the preposition be to read beyom. Secondly, it is used in a construct relation with the infinitive form of ‘asah, "to make." It reads literally, "in the day of making." This combination of the singular with a preposition in construct with an infinitive98 makes this combination a "temporal conjunction,"99 which serves as a "general introduction of time."100 Genesis 2:4b reads literally, "in [the] day of the Lord God making the earth and heaven. Proper English calls for the literal "in [the] day of," which is syntactically a temporal conjunction that serves as a general introduction of time, to be rendered with "when." This sentence then reads, "When the Lord God made...." This clear-cut case of an extended, non-literal use of yom in the creation account of Genesis 2:4-25 shows that the contrary usage of yom in Genesis 1, without any expected qualifier that marks it as a non-literal use, has a literal meaning. The term yom in Genesis 1 has no prepositions; it is not used in a construct relation and it has no syntactical indicator expected of an extended, non-literal meaning. Thus, in Genesis 1 yom can mean only a literal "day" of 24 hours. In short, the semantic-syntactical usages of yom, "day," in Genesis 1 as compared with semantic-syntactical usages and linguistic connections of this term in other Old Testament passages where it has an extended meaning, does not allow it to mean a long period of time, an age, or the like. The Hebrew language, its grammar, syntax, linguistic structures as well as its semantic usage allows for only the literal meaning of "day" for the creation "days" of Genesis 1. In this case, yom is being used to refer to an unspecified period of time. Like "back in the day".
quote: Genesis 2:4-5 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 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... ICANT writes: purpledawn writes: So God was unable or unwilling to remove sin and death from the " He did. He just did not do it according to your time table.
purpledawn writes: While sin is not inherited, descendants can suffer from the consequences of their parents choices. You can suffer from other peoples choices other than your parents.
urpledawn writes: Your hypothesis does make the penalty inherited. The new people inherited the penalty due to no fault of their own. God made them that way The penalty is not inherited. It is a fact as the penalty exists because the man formed from the dust of the ground ate the fruit.Man is separated from God. (God kicked man out of His garden) This disobedience brought death into existence. purpledawn writes: So the supposed death of 9 generations of people wasn't enough to pay the "penalty". Sad. That paid their penalty. But it did not pay yours. You are under the same penalty and are condemned already unless you have accepted God's offer of a free full pardon. As I said, you can double talk your hypothesis to fit your doctrine, but as I said, your hypothesis makes the salvation issue looks worse than atheists already view it.
ICANT writes: purpledawn writes: The text does not say there was a destruction of A&E's descendants until we get to Noah and the flood. You haven't shown text that supports the destruction of the first people. The man was told the day he ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he would die. The light had ceased to shine in Genesis 1:2. That man nor any of his descendants existed as the earth was covered with water. So the text supports that they did not exist when the day ended in darkness. You're creating your own version, so there isn't anything I can respond to. It isn't in the text. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3477 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:No. The A&E story was written as a just so story, not an actual event. The Priestly writer wrote his creation story to point to the Sabbath rest. Temple-as-cosmos motif. Message 130 They aren't journals. Creation is the inspiration for both stories. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
jaywill Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Morning ICANT,
I have only enough time to reply to about half of your post. I'll examine the rest latter.
Not the Seth mentioned in Genesis 5:3. His father was only 130 years old. Since Moses did not divide Genesis into chapters and verses what makes you think Genesis 4:25 and 26 belong in chapter 4? They are added either as an afterthought or they don't belong with chapter 4 but with chapter 5. If I ignore chapter divisions and simply refer to them as location indicators: Seth is born as a result of Adam's additional intimacy with his wife (4:25). In the next sentence this Seth is said to be the father of Enosh. (4:26) Moving forward 5:6 repeats that Seth is the father of Enosh. And this Seth's father, backing up now, is Adam. The line from the man Adam knowing his wife an ADDITIONAL time to bring forth Seth the father of Enosh is very clear to me.
jaywill writes: "Male and female He created them, ... and called their name Adam" (5:2) In the next breath and in a seamless manner this man "Mr. Adam" if you will, lived 130 years and begot Seth (v.3) The flow of history is from Adam "made ... in the likenesss of God" to "... and begot a son in his likeness according to his image, and he called his name Seth" (5:3) The text says: Hold on. Do you mean "THE TEXT" that I am quoting or THE TEXT that you are quoting ? The TEXT which I am quoting from is Genesis 5:1,2. The TEXT that you then proceed to quote stating "the text says: is Genesis 1:27. They share identical information though worded differently:
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And Genesis 5:1,2 says this:
" ... When God create Adam, He made him in the likeness of God. Male and female He created them, and He blessed them and called their name Adam, on the day when they were created." There is little to exploit to build a case that they are not talking about the exact same event. I am afraid that the exploitation of anything from these two passages to build a case that they are talking about different events is really imaginative and shaky.
This verse says God created mankind in his own image male and female at the same time. Verse 31 tells us this happened on the sixth day. I have no problem with that. Genesis 5:1,2 is discribing the same event. Building a case that they are not speaking of the same thing is at best highly speculative (trying to remain polite here).
Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; This tells us the man created in Genesis 1:27 in the likeness of God has the following generations. It does not say the generations of Adam in the day he was formed from the dust of the ground in the image of God. You entertain an artificial expectation that every word has to be exactly the same. That is to me, an unreasonable expectation. So it did not say "in the day that God formed man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul .... etc. etc. etc." It is not required that it speak the EXACT same words in the EXACT same way. I think trying to exploit this characteristic of Genesis 5:1,2 is too weak.
Genesis 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. This tells us they both were called Adam which translated is mankind. I'll verify that latter. But that they were God's kind seems to be more the impact of the passage. But this could be a small point. I don't understand why you want to say Genesis 1:26,27 is refering to something other than Genesis 5:1,2 and 2:7.
jaywill writes: Adam (Gen 5:1) who was "made in the likeness of God" fathered Abel, Cain, and Seth. Genesis chapter 5 does not mention Abel or Cain. No it does not. I fully agree. Nevertheless, if you do NOT believe that you create a problem. You have to explain how the Seth of Genesis 4:26 is not the Seth of Genesis 5:6. Not only that, you also, I think, have to explain that the Enosh of Genesis 4:26 is also another coincidental Enosh or than the Enosh of Genesis 5:6. Not only that, you also have to explain that Genesis 4:26 beginning with the word "And" as in "And to Seth also was born ..." is not a continuation of the history of previous verse 25. And previous verse 25 says Adam went AGAIN into his wife and replaced, as it were, Abel with Seth. Is it worth it ? For what are you going through these gymnastics ? Is it to figure out which animals were made before Adam or after Adam ? I would suggest to just live with the animal problem and accept the obvious. " The things that are hidden belong to Jehovah our God; but the things that are revealed, to us and our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." (Deut. 29:29) Exactly what the mechanics are with animals and how and when they came about so as to harmonize chapter one and two, I'll leave as the hidden things belonging to God.
If Cain had been mentioned his genealogy would have been used as he would have been the first born. I think that the priorities of the writer are different from what you might expect. Your priorities may expect that Cain and Abel should be mentioned. The writer's priorities may lie elsewhere. We told of Adam " ... and he begot [more] sons and daughters." (v.4) . Without the supplied word [more] it would literally be that he begot sons and daughters. So we know that others not named in the geneology are also his descendents. I honestly think that the writer's and the Holy Spirit's intention is to focus on the Adam to Seth connection. Cain and Abel are simply not listed. Considerable discussion was devoted to Cain and Abel previously.
jaywill writes: Genesis 4:25 proves that the father of Seth knew his wife "AGAIN" and that "ANOTHER" descendent was the result "instead of Abel" who had been murdered by his brother. It only proves that someone did a little doctoring of the text. If we start down that road, I also can say doctoring occured so that the Seth mentioned in 5:6 is not the Seth mentioned in 5:7 the very next verse.
"And Seth lived one hundred five years and begot Enosh. (v.5) And Seth [another Seth doctoringly inserted into the text] lived after he had begotten Enosh [another Enosh] eight hundred seven years ..." I don't think the appeal to text doctoriing can remove the clarity of the man of Genesis 2:7 being the Adam, the father of Cain, Abel, Seth, and other sons and daughters (Gen 5:4).
The man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 and the Man created in the image of God in Genesis 1:27 can not be the same man. Why not? Is it because there are two accounts which do not repeat the same words in the same way ? I don't buy that.
The man in Genesis 2:7 was the first life form on earth. I just believe that it is written from another perspective with another set of priorities. I bet you have been through many debates about the harmonization of chapter one and two. I can bet that none were satisfactory. I am sure if I proposed some speculations you could show weaknesses with all of them. I could too for they are speculations. I think I will spend more time to explore why the Spirit reveals to us this double testimony to the creation of man. Do you recognize that the man of Genesis 2 is called the FIRST man in First Corinthians?
"The first man is out of the earth, earthy; the second man is out of heaven." (1 CDor. 15:47) Can't you put two and two together and assume that the man created in Genesis 1:26,27 is that man made out of the earth without Genesis 1:26,27 having to say the exact same thing as is said in 2:7 in exactly the same way ?
The man in Genesis 1:27 was the last creature God created, on day six. I don't think the account is exhaustive. It obviously is not meant to be an exhuastive description of how God did everything involved in causing the world to exist.
If you want them to be the same then explain how that is possible. Why do I have to ? Why can I not trust in God that He has spoken two paradoxical accounts which are true ? I have to return latter. I am called away by a child wanting breakfast. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Jay,
jaywill writes:
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And Genesis 5:1,2 says this:
" ... When God create Adam, He made him in the likeness of God. Male and female He created them, and He blessed them and called their name Adam, on the day when they were created." There is little to exploit to build a case that they are not talking about the exact same event. I am afraid that the exploitation of anything from these two passages to build a case that they are talking about different events is really imaginative and shaky.
Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; This verse of scripture states that the following is the history of the mankind created in the likeness of God. When you do a search for that mankind you find them in Genesis 1:27. These people are further specified in 5:2 as being created male and female. I have in no place ever said these are different people. The mankind in Genesis 5:1 is the mankind created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27.
jaywill writes: I don't understand why you want to say Genesis 1:26,27 is referring to something other than Genesis 5:1,2 and 2:7. Simple. The man created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27 can not be the same man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7. The man in Genesis 1:27 was created on day six after all other life forms. The man in Genesis 2:7 was formed from the dust of the earth before any other life form. How do you reconcile this huge difference? If you can't then they are not the same man.
jaywill writes: No it does not. I fully agree. Nevertheless, if you do NOT believe that you create a problem. You have to explain how the Seth of Genesis 4:26 is not the Seth of Genesis 5:6. Not only that, you also, I think, have to explain that the Enosh of Genesis 4:26 is also another coincidental Enosh or than the Enosh of Genesis 5:6. That is easier to reconcile than a man formed from the dust of the ground before all other life forms and a man created male and female at the same time after all other life forms being the same man. I live in the state of Florida and there are 5 men in the state with the same name that I have. Two of them have firstborn sons that have the same name as my firstborn son. It can happen.
jaywill writes: Is it worth it ? For what are you going through these gymnastics ? Is it to figure out which animals were made before Adam or after Adam ? But the man in Genesis 2:7 was formed from the dust of the ground before any other life forms of any kind. The man created in Genesis 1:27 was created after all other life forms. If that is so it is impossible for them to be the same man.
jaywill writes: We told of Adam " ... and he begot [more] sons and daughters." (v.4) . Without the supplied word [more] it would literally be that he begot sons and daughters. So we know that others not named in the geneology are also his descendents. They are not named because they are not the firstborn son.
jaywill writes: I honestly think that the writer's and the Holy Spirit's intention is to focus on the Adam to Seth connection. Cain and Abel are simply not listed. Considerable discussion was devoted to Cain and Abel previously. But Cain was the first born of the man formed from the dust of the ground and the lineage would have been recorded through him if he belonged to the generations of the man presented in Genesis 5:1.
jaywill writes: I just believe that it is written from another perspective with another set of priorities. I bet you have been through many debates about the harmonization of chapter one and two. I can bet that none were satisfactory. I am sure if I proposed some speculations you could show weaknesses with all of them. I could too for they are speculations. You just made one of those speculations in the statement "I just believe that it is written from another perspective with another set of priorities." Yes I have been telling this story since 1949 when I read about creation as a 10 year old boy and presented the story I have presented in this thread at a Midweek prayer service as a devotional. Now can you explain to me how a 10 year old boy could come up with the things I have set forth in this thread. The only things that I had ever heard about creation was that "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth." God said it and that settled it. Nothing else was ever mentioned about creation.
jaywill writes: "The first man is out of the earth, earthy; the second man is out of heaven." (1 CDor. 15:47) I agree that Paul was talking about the man formed from the dust of the ground who was the first mankind on the earth as he was formed in the beginning.
jaywill writes: Can't you put two and two together and assume that the man created in Genesis 1:26,27 is that man made out of the earth without Genesis 1:26,27 having to say the exact same thing as is said in 2:7 in exactly the same way ? But I don't have 2+2 to add together. I have a man who was formed from the dust of the ground in the beginning before any other life form. I have a man who was created after all other life forms on day six of the Seven Days of Moses. They can not be the same man the differences are too great. Now if you can move the man from being formed in the beginning to the sixth day of Moses and somehow get him formed after all other life forms then I would have 2 + 2 to add together.
jaywill writes: I don't think the account is exhaustive. It obviously is not meant to be an exhuastive description of how God did everything involved in causing the world to exist. No it is not exhaustive but it is specific in what it does tell us.
jaywill writes: Why do I have to ? Why can I not trust in God that He has spoken two paradoxical accounts which are true ? God can not lie. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi PD,
purpledawn writes: Genesis 1:1 is an opening sentence that puts the audience in the right time frame for the story that follows and tells the subject of the story. I know that is what you believe you have stated it enough. I also know that the text in Genesis 1:1 is a declarative statement of finished action.
purpledawn writes: Oral stories are updated through the years to fit with the culture of the time. Once a story is put to paper, it is stuck in time unless revised. But God told Moses to write those things in a book and it was to be rehershed every seven years.
purpledawn writes: If you want to update the story to fit with current knowledge, then just update the story and acknowledge that you're revising the story to reflect current knowledge and beliefs. Don't try to pretend that the text or the original authors support your revision. But I am not trying to change the text. I am only trying to understand exactly what it says not what someone else tells me that it says.
purpledawn writes: I said (and you quoted it) kosmos wasn't translated as mankind, but refers to mankind as shown in the 5th definition. It says after 4 other definitions that it could refer to mankind. But it was never translated anything other than world except in one instance. It other literature it may have been used to refer to mankind but it was not translated and used in the NT to mean mankind.
purpledawn writes: That's not what I'm saying, so you aren't agreeing with me. But I am agreeing with the text that is written.
purpledawn writes: The birth of Seth is at the end of the A&E story and the Redactor continues with Seth in the genealogy. Cain's descendants are already listed in the story. And it couldn't have been the copyist attempt to make one story out of the two stories by changing a couples of words and adding a little to the text. You are talking about a redactor arranging things to suit himself/herself.
Genesis 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD. If verse 25 read: And Adam knew his wife; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD. This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
purpledawn writes: No, Genesis 2:4 is not saying that everything was done in a single day. The use of yom in that sentence is not literal. OK Peg what do you base that assertion on?
purpledawn writes: In this case, yom is being used to refer to an unspecified period of time. Like "back in the day". But I have affirmed throughout this thread that Genesis 1:1 is an unspecified existence of a light period called day. So what is the problem?
purpledawn writes: As I said, you can double talk your hypothesis to fit your doctrine, but as I said, your hypothesis makes the salvation issue looks worse than atheists already view it. You think I am here trying to convince people that do not believe in God that they should accept what the Bible says. If you do you got another think coming. I would rather go outside and pull up a chair by the mailbox and argue with it. Now those that do believe in God but are confused yes I am presenting evidence that they should believe God can and will do what He says He will do.
purpledawn writes: You're creating your own version, so there isn't anything I can respond to. It isn't in the text. Your saying the text does not support my position does not make the fact that man existed in the beginning in the day the Lord God created the Heaven and the Earth. It is a fact the man and woman could not exist at Genesis 1:2. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
