Creation According to Genesis: One Account or Two?

quote:

---

As I posted before, there is a textual linkage between Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter two based on the references to day seven in 2:1

---

That is not a valid argument. Genesis 2:1 is part of the first story. The second story starts with Genesis 2:4 - and that's really quite obvious if you read them. I'm afraid that your "link" is not a link between the two stories.

quote:

---

Actually 2-5 says that there were no plants and no men to till them, so the clear meaning is that the verse refers to a time before either of them. I don't see a contradiction there.

---

That rules out the idea that the second story is simply an account of the sixth day. Also the creation of man follows directly on from the establishment of the garden, without any of the intervening elements in the first story.

quote:

---

I would make a similar call regarding 2:19 and the animals. The NIV talks about bringing previously created animals over to Adam for naming, while the KJV expresses the creating and bringing as concurrent actions. Other translations seem quite neutral on the order.

---

And this is one of the places where the NIV is criticised for placing doctrine above accurate translation.

quote:

---

Commentary I read on the Bible, which is of course primarily from literalists seems to suggest that the otherwise hated NIV is truer to the mark on this point.

---

It's not surprising that inerrantists would choose a translation convenient to their doctrine over a more accurate translation.

quote:

---

Finally, where does the first account require men and women to be created together?

---

Aside from the point that it seems absurd to insert a gap of days between the creation of man and the creation of plans as well as reversing the order of events, but to place the creation of man and woman on the same day, when the naming of the animals comes between them, Genesis 1:27 describes the creation of man and woman as a single act. After the creation of the animals.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

On the other hand, I don't see a refutation of my point that 2:5 does not imply an that man appeared before plants appear which was what I addressed in your post.

---

2:7 describes the creation of man and 2:8-9 describe the creation of plants following that event. And, of course the other story has plants created days before man (or longer since you seem to take the "days" as non-literal)

quote:

---

Fair enough. But the NIV is not the only translation which takes this position, and a general criticism of the NIV, primarily by fundamentalists does not settle the issue of which translation is correct.

---

Who says that I am talking about fundamentalist criticisms at all? Outside of Fundamentalist criticisms the NIV is known as being questionable in places for smoothing out difficulties and this is one example.

quote:

---

Right, but that alone does not make the position wrong. I don't personally have "issues" with the NIV. My wife on the other hand does prefer the KJV.

---

From what I've read I wouldn't recommend either as translations. For more casual reading the NIV might be better for modern readers, but it isn't the most accurate.

quote:

---

There is not enough detail in Genesis 1:27 to claim that the verse requires simultaneous creation. Read literally the verse says the same day, which of course would cause a problem for someone who insists upon that kind of literal reading of how time passed during creation. In fact, I would use chapter two as argument if I were discussing this issue with a literalist.

---

The days are one of the features of Genesis 1-2:3 most likely to be intended literally - the continual references to morning and evening support that reading. I don't think that it is viable to single them out as non-literal elements, although it is possible to insist that the entire story is non-literal.But aside from that the creation of man and woman is still described as a single event, and not with woman created as something of an afterthought, after going through all the animals as potential partners (and surely this is something that makes little sense when taken literally!)

quote:

---

I've already addressed all of this.

---

In the translation that I am looking at (NASB) the planting of the garden follows the creation of man. There's nothing that implies that plants existed first.Even if you dispute that 2:8 refers to the actual appearance of trees, suggesting that none existed prior to that, which is still in contradiction to the other story.

quote:

---

All translations have errors and impreciseness. Questionable in places does not demonstrate that it is questionable in this case

---

However I am not relying on general criticisms. I am relying on specific criticism of that verse. "Questionable in this case" DOES mean "questionable in this case"

quote:

---

The sun and moon are described as being created on the same day. Does that imply a single event? The text simply does not contain the precision you are insistin

---

That would depend on interpretation. If Genesis 1:14-15 is taken as creation by word (as the "and it was so") implies then the creation of the Sun and Moon was a single event. If you take 1:16-18 as describing the process of the creation then it was two separate events - but even then, they are sequential.The wording is different in 1:27. but I can see no reading that justifies a significant gap between the creation of men and women. Indeed, I would read it as a single event, creating multiple - more than two - humans.

quote:

---

On the other this translation does provide such support.

---

On the other hand, if planting the garden in this version referred to actual growing plants it would contradict 2:5, and wouldn't sit well with 2:9. If the panting referred to planting seeds it would fit with those, but contradict the first account again

quote:

---

This I do dispute. None of the translations of 2:8 that I have looked at say anything about any the creation of plants outside of the garden in Eden. Perhaps you meant to refer to another verse?

---

You're right but the verse is 2:9. Even if you assume that it only refers to the Garden of Eden, it would be pretty odd for God to have created full grown trees all over the world, have planted the garden including all other growing plants but then wait to create man before producing full-grown trees in Eden. (Odd that you didn't recognise 2:9)

quote:

---

The distinction is significant because it creates an asymmetry for 2:8 respect to our positions. 2:8 refers only to those plants that are part of the garden of Eden. Accordingly, it can be used to demonstrate conclusively that there were at least some plants before man (if such translations are correct).

---

If you assume that planting the Garden refers to placing growing plants there. If it refers only to seeds - which would seem to be a better reading given 2:5 and even 2:9 the problem remains.

quote:

---

Okay. Here is what you said.

​

Outside of Fundamentalist criticisms the NIV is known as being questionable in places for smoothing out difficulties and this is one example.

​

Upon re-reading I find I can take this as a either a specific criticism of this verse or simply an example of smoothing by a known smoother. In any event, you've resolved the issue.

---

What I originally said was: There's no ambiguity there.

quote:

---

Could you point to a specific criticism of the NIV's rendering of this verse? It is quite likely that such criticism would decide this point in your favor, particularly if the criticism included a discussion of the original language that the NIV has smoothed over.

---

It's well-known enough to have made it in to Wikipedia:
Unfortunately the references are to books, so can't be easily checked.

quote:

---

First if a garden does not refer to actual growing plants, then the verse is asinine in my opinion.

---

I see nothing wrong with the planting referring to planting seeds or calling the space a garden after the seeds have been planted but before they have germinated.

quote:

---

Secondly, 2:9 does not provide a contradiction. It simply says that there were no trees in the garden. Read literally, only 2:5 presents any issue.

---

If one insists on reading like an inerrantist rather than considering what the text is actually telling us, that is. Obviously the trees - an important part of the garden - were NOT present as growing plants prior to 2:9. If you wish to interpret the planting as referring to placing growing plants, rather than seeds, in the ground you need to explain why the trees were excluded.

quote:

---

Again, I question the idea that every creation event described in chapter one (or two for matter) must occur instantaneously as by a magician "poofing"

---

Since I've never suggested any such thing that is hardly an objection to my reasoning.

quote:

---

I am taking the blame for getting this wrong. Perhaps by giving an excuse I made that unclear. I make no excuse here.

---

The fact that the excuse - at best - ignored a relevant fact is also an issue. Had the excuse been reasonable I would have let it pass without comment.

quote:

---

As for the argument Sailhamer provides that the NIV translaton does not fit, the fundamentalists interpretation of creating animals is that God created and brought animals to be Adam's companions, but that such an event was not necessarily the first creation of animals. That interpretation removes the argument that the NIV and other translations have missed the point of the story since Adam seems to spend all of the time in the garden up until the point where he gets the boot.

---

I think that Sailhammer's claim that the translation is "impossible" is more important. However you manage to completely miss even this secondary argument. Sailhammer states that the point odf the story is that: Clearly the creation must follow the declaration to be "in response" to it.

quote:

---

Chapter 1 is short on detail and in fact is so short that questions like 'how much time passed between the creation of Adam and Eve, and was the process used identical simply are unanswerable based on the wording of chapter 1.

---

I don't believe that anyone would argue that if not for the conflict with the second creation story. The creation of mankind - male and female - is presented as a single act.

quote:

---

I don't see anything wrong with calling a garden an area with plants in it either.

---

Since nothing I've said has suggested otherwise, this is at best irrelevant rhetoric.

quote:

---

You are simply picking a translation that causes a conflict

---

Since we are discussing your favoured translation, this is obviously untrue. The more so since I'm offering an interpretation that fits better with the context and I,ve given reasons to support that,

quote:

---

I'd say the same thing about your requirement that create means instantaneous poofing of everything named in the verse.

---

Since I've made no such requirement - and already corrected you on this issue - I see no excuse for you to repeat your false assertion.

quote:

---

It seems to me that we are covering the same ground with mere repetition of our arguments, but getting closer to making personal attacks on the sanity of the position holder.

---

It seems to me that you are very much neglecting the text and my arguments. Pointing out where you have obviously misconstrued the argument you are responding to is neither a mere repetition, nor a personal attack. Indeed it is necessary for constructive discussion.

quote:

---

It's not irrelevant. I am pointing out that the text does not support one of our interpretations over the other. I thought that to be important. If in fact that point was already obvious, then perhaps your own comment was redundant rhetoric.

---

Since your comment was aimed solely at the meaning of "garden" after previously claiming that it supported your view over mine, saying that it supported neither would be a concession on your part, agreeing with the point you are replying to. It doesn't read that way, does it?

quote:

---

You've been insistent that you would interpret chapter 1 to imply simultaneous creation of man and woman

---

I've been insistent that it is described as a single event, which is true. It certainly doesn't read as suggesting that women were an afterthought, made from a piece of a man.

quote:

---

Again, there is nothing new in your post other than attempts to impute motives on very weak evidence. I don't see any rebuttal at all. Can I take that trend as indicating that we are done here?

---

It would be more accurate to say that your previous post lacked any rebuttals. If you,re ready to concede, leaving my points unanswered I'm not stopping you.

quote:

---

Maybe it is. But that hasn't been established to my satisfaction.

---

I'll leave it to you to do the research, as you said you would.

quote:

---

In fact I addressed that point directly.

---

Not really. Here's your response again: This is NOT an interpretation of the NIV translation, it is an attempt to harmonise the more common translation, preferred by Sailhammer, with the other story. This argument does not support the NIV translation - it rejects it.Thus it does not "remove" the argument against the NIV translation - it agrees with it.(And I note that you claimed earlier that some fundamentalists endorsed the NIV translation so clearly this is not "the " fundamentalist view, only "a" fundamentalist view)Even worse, Sailhammers argument still weighs against it. By adding an unmentioned prior creation of animals, you are still reducing the significance of the presumed second creation (absent in the NIV) and raising some awkward questions about the text. So really, I don't think that you managed to rebut Sailhammer's point at all.

quote:

---

I don't think I claimed that. I simply said that I had addressed the comment made by Sailhammer. You claimed that I had ignored your point. That's clearly not correct.

---

That's a laugh. You claimed to have "removed" Sailhammer's argument against the NIV translation - when your response assumed that the NIV translation was incorrect. And you didn't even succeed in neutralising Sailhammer's argument - even by admitting that the NIV was wrong.

quote:

---

My point is that Sailhammer's comment does not cover all possibilities. And I do not need to rely solely on the NIV translation. I cited one other translation that is even more demonstrative than the NIV translation.

---

For the creation of the animals ? I can't see it.

quote:

---

I agree with you that citing fundamentalist preferences that are designed to harmonize the translations are week arguments unless those attempts are backed up by interpreting the original language. In some cases they do explain their interpretation in terms of that language, but I won't make that argument officially without being a bit better prepared.

---

Fundamentalists generally aren't trustworthy sources.

quote:

---

That's not at all my argument.

---

I'm afraid that it is.

quote:

---

Sailhamer said that the NIV being correct results in a removing the point of the story of animal creation. I replied that the NIV being correct, plus some other things produced a story that preserved the that point, and yet did not contradict Chapter 1.

---

The NIV denies that there was a creation of animals after the creation of Adam. Your argument agrees with Sailhammer that that is incorrect.

quote:

---

I did point out that even if the plants in the garden were created after man was created, that such a thing would not mean that there were no non-garden plants or animals created before both the garden and man were created.

---

Sailhammer's argument does not address the plants. However similar considerations apply. Also I will add that you are arguing like an inerrantist, placing the inerrancy doctrine above the best reading of the text here. Putting a doctrine that you apparently don't accept before the Biblical text seems a very odd thing to do.

quote:

---

I would suggest that Genesis 2 is such a record. By the way, I'm going to revert to the single "m" spelling for Sailhamer based on the spelling in this Wikipedia article.

---

Which doesn't really address the points raised here.

quote:

---

There is that, but at least if their argument is presented in full, and the rationale is given, then the argument can be evaluated on its own merits. No need to trust if you can adequately verify.

---

That can be a big "if" though.

quote:

---

This is a gross misreading.

---

NO. It is the WHOLE POINT of the different translation in the NIV. It talks of animals that had already been created, rather than God creating animals then and there.Tour interpretation of other translations, acceptign their disagreement with the NIV is not a defence of the NIV translation. How can it be - it assumes that the NIV translation is wrong.

quote:

---

I have been speaking strictly about the wording of 2:5. I have not commented explicitly on the wording of 2:19 in the NIV other than to say that it is not pointless

---

Well if you're going to talk about the wrong verse no wonder you get confused. 2:19 is the verse I meant all along, and it is clearly the verse that Sailhamer's criticism is directed at. I have no idea how you managed to get so mixed up but it is your problem.

quote:

---

. And it is not. It is instead different from the KJV. The story as told in the KJV and the NIV are different. Sailhamer's complaint is nothing more than a statement that the NIV and KJV are different. So what?

---

The NIV translation is certainly not pointless - the point is to deny that there were animals created after Adam. However it does undermine the point of that part of the story, as seen by Sailhamer and I agree with him on that.

quote:

---

No motivation to create animals is needed anyway. The earth's ecology does not work without them.

---

And there is a silly misrepresentation. The question is why an ADDITIONAL creation of animals is needed, instead of simply bringing already exiting animals to Adam as the NIV says.

quote:

---

By the way, when you say that fundamentalists are not to be trusted, isn't Sailhamer just another Bible literalist and fundamentalist with a non conventional interpretation of the Bible?

---

I don't know. However since I'm quoting Sailhamer to point out that the NIV translation of Genesis 2:19 is specifically criticised that really doesn't matter.I'll ignore your quote-mining. It deserves no more response.

quote:

---

Isn't the questionable part of 2:5 and 2:19 the same? I have to admit that I did make my remarks about 2:5 despite Sailhamer addressing 2:19. But both use the pluperfect.

---

Presumably you mean 2:8 (obviously you do not mean 2:5). I haven't seen the same criticisms of 2:8 as of 2:19 - and while Sailhamer's argument about the story seems to apply, I have no reason to think that the original language rules out the NIV translation of 2:8

quote:

---

Surely I did not say that Chapter 2:4 and forward was simply an account of day six.

---

Weird how you're answering something said way back in the conversation (message 9) and that you've already responded to. However, to avoid contradicting Genesis 1:27 you need events from the creation of Adam to the creation of Eve all to be on the sixth day.

quote:

---

So what?

---

So your "gross misreading" is the Reading intended by the translators.So your "defence" of the NIV relies on agreeing with the criticism.So you have spent the last several posts defending a glaringly obvious errorAny one of these is significant enough.

quote:

---

Sailhamer's point is not persuasive to me.

---

Except that we know that it did persuade you to reject the NIV translation.

quote:

---

But more to the point, I don't understand why you find it so persuasive. In the overall scheme of things it does not describe the reason why animals preceded man on earth, so what truth does Salhamer's preferred translation serve other than his own

---

It serves the truth of the text. Of accurately representing the words of Genesis, of the intent of the story. Of course to an inerrantist these things should all be sacrificed to the doctrine of inerrancy. Apparently you agree.

quote:

---

Let's be explicit about what's required here. All that is needed is for Adam and Eve to be created on the sixth day.

---

No, that is not all. You need time for the events of the sixth day prior to the creation of man. You need time for the events between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve. That's a pretty tight fit.

quote:

---

A quote mine is a statement ripped out of context to deceive

---

Exactly.