Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
32 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK (2 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,827 Year: 16,863/19,786 Month: 988/2,598 Week: 234/251 Day: 5/58 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2
Peg
Member (Idle past 3188 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 4 of 295 (566679)
06-25-2010 7:55 PM


Genesis should not be read as a scientific record of the earths creation because it is not and anyone who tries to read it like that will come to dissapointment. Gen 1 presents a simple chronological account of the 'order' of creation... it doesnt go into great detail about how it was done though.

Gen 2 is completely different and serves a different purpose which is why it is not identical.

Gen 2 focuses only on the mans creation and the garden he was put into. It is not to be read as a 'creation account' but rather as the beginning of mans life and how he came to be removed from the garden.


Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by hepteract, posted 06-25-2010 8:06 PM Peg has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3188 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 18 of 295 (567154)
06-29-2010 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by hepteract
06-25-2010 8:06 PM


Re: Still Inconsistent
hpteract writes:

While I agree that the main purpose was not as a chronological account, that still doesn't change the fact that it describes man as being created "before any plant of the field had yet sprung up", a clear discrepancy with chapter one.

if we are only focusing on it chronologically, then it is certainly different in that regard, yes.

But, if we look at the difference in the hebrew words that moses used to describe this 'creation' then we find that its not a 'creation' at all.

In vs 19 he mentions the 'forming' of the animals to 'bring them to the man' for him to name. Now this is different to Gen 1:21 where he 'creates' the first of the animals.

In the hebrew interlinear chp1:21 says:
and·he-is-creating (u·ibra) Elohim the·monsters the·great-ones and every-of soul the·livingthe·moving which they-roam the·waters to·species-of·them and every-of flyer-of wing

whereas in chp 2:19 the word changes from creating/u·ibra animals to forming/u·itzr them.
and·he-is-forming (u·itzr) Yahweh Elohim from the·ground every-of animal-of the·field and·every-of flyer-of the·heavens and·he-is-bringing
to the·human to·to-see-of me what ? he-shall-call to·him

This is at least some evidence that Moses was not writing an account of creation. The word moses used for 'form' (itza) does not mean to create from scratch but it means to make something from an existing thing. So in the context of the passage, the existing animals were now used for a new purpose and that purpose was to be named by the man. Isaiah 44:12 is an example of the same word in regards to a coppersmith.

"...the carver of iron with the billhook, he has been busy [at it] with the coals; and with the hammers he proceeds to FORM/ITZA it..."

So the word is used on an 'exisiting' item in this case the man who works on the existing iron....not on something completely uncreated if you know what i mean.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by hepteract, posted 06-25-2010 8:06 PM hepteract has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by hepteract, posted 07-04-2010 2:41 PM Peg has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3188 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 27 of 295 (568212)
07-04-2010 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by hepteract
07-04-2010 2:41 PM


Re: Still Inconsistent
hepteract writes:

This is true, but it doesn't address what I said: Man is described as being created "before any plant of the field had yet sprung up". Any inconsistency proves falsehood of at least one of the stories, which proves that the Bible is not inerrant.

its not a chronological account...its as simple as that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by hepteract, posted 07-04-2010 2:41 PM hepteract has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by hepteract, posted 07-05-2010 2:14 AM Peg has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3188 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 33 of 295 (568430)
07-05-2010 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by hepteract
07-05-2010 2:14 AM


Re: Still Inconsistent
hepteract writes:

Even if its purpose is not as a chronological account, for it to be inerrant it still needs to keep consistent. The statement that plants did not exist when man was created is a clear and stark contradiction with what was said in chapter one. Even if the passage as a whole serves a different purpose, that particular sentence is stating a chronological order that is inconsistent with the order described just verses before.


firstly, Gen 2 is talking about the GARDEN OF EDEN, that is the subject.
In line with that subject we read that there are no 'plants' and the earth had not been cultivated because there was no man.
I dont believe this is refering to all vegetation of the entire earth because when Adam was removed from the garden, the earth outside did have vegetation in it which was uncultivated and a lot of hard work for Adam.

When God forms the man he places him in the GARDEN as opposed to the FIELD. In vs 8 he says he is planting the garden and PLACING THE MAN THERE. This shows that the garden existed before the man otherwise how could God place the man in the garden if it wasnt already existing?

Then vs9 says he's causing to sprout every tree 'good to sight'
So again, the food trees were already there otherwise how could it be said that Adam could see that they were 'good to sight'?

hebrew interlinear writes:

Gen2:7 and·he-is-forming Yahweh Elohim the·human soil from the·ground

VS8 and·he-is-planting Yahweh Elohim garden in·Eden and·he-is-placing
there the·human whom he-formed

VS9 and·he-is-causing-to-sprout Yahweh Elohim from the·ground every-of tree being-coveted to·sight and·good for·food

There is a difference between the entire uncultivated earth and the cultivated garden which God made as a home for the man. The garden was a starting point of cultivated ground...from there Adam would continue to cultivate the rest of the earth until the entire globe became a cultivated paradise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by hepteract, posted 07-05-2010 2:14 AM hepteract has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by hepteract, posted 07-05-2010 9:08 PM Peg has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3188 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 49 of 295 (568598)
07-07-2010 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by hepteract
07-05-2010 9:08 PM


Re: Still Inconsistent
hepteract writes:

The passage there clearly describes the garden as having been created after man, with man being placed there after both were created.

Since it was on earth, as shown by the fact that real rivers were used to denote its location, it would have fallen under that category ('on the earth').

if the garden was created after the man, where was the man placed while the garden was being created?
Moses does not mention any temporary abiding place for the man...he only says that God planted a garden and placed the man in it. So it would be illogical to assume that God made the garden after he made adam.

Anyway, if you want a chronological account of creation you have to look at chpt 1 because chpt 2 is not a chronological account and it doesnt have to be....its purpose is different to chpt 1.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by hepteract, posted 07-05-2010 9:08 PM hepteract has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3188 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 50 of 295 (568599)
07-07-2010 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by purpledawn
07-06-2010 8:22 PM


Re: Redactor Makes a Tale
purpledawn, that documentary hypothesis is extremly old...dating back to wellhausen in the late 1800's
this may be off topic but i just wanted to mention that in line with the topic, you cant really use the old wellhausen theory to try and prove your point becasue that theory has been shown to not be entirely accurate.

In the 80's a group of researchers at the Technion Institute in Haifa did a linguistic analysis of the book of Genesis by feeding its 20,000 words into a computer program which studies word usage and occurrence. The results were reported and the newer conclusion is that at least 82% of the pentacheut had only one author.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by purpledawn, posted 07-06-2010 8:22 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by purpledawn, posted 07-07-2010 8:25 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019