Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,584 Year: 4,841/9,624 Month: 189/427 Week: 102/85 Day: 7/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 813 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 61 of 149 (146884)
10-02-2004 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by dpardo
10-02-2004 8:32 PM


there is no logical reason to assume that we are being given a new one.
Well, except just maybe for the fact that it is a new one, incompatible, as you have been shown a dozen times, with the one given before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by dpardo, posted 10-02-2004 8:32 PM dpardo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by dpardo, posted 10-03-2004 12:26 AM Coragyps has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2843 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 62 of 149 (146898)
10-02-2004 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Amlodhi
10-02-2004 10:04 PM


Amlodhi writes:
Verse 1 says האדם (ha'adam) = the man.
Any thoughts on why the KJV, RSV, and so many others render it as Adam?
Is your Hebrew text different from the one they were using?
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Amlodhi, posted 10-02-2004 10:04 PM Amlodhi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-03-2004 1:10 AM doctrbill has not replied
 Message 76 by Amlodhi, posted 10-03-2004 3:38 PM doctrbill has replied

dpardo
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 149 (146909)
10-03-2004 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Coragyps
10-02-2004 10:22 PM


Hi Coragyps.
Thank you for your input.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Coragyps, posted 10-02-2004 10:22 PM Coragyps has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3127 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 64 of 149 (146918)
10-03-2004 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by doctrbill
10-02-2004 11:55 PM


Amlodhi admits it says Adam but it should be translated ishi.
The definite article is supposed to prevent what Amlodhi is doing but he will flood you with rhetoric/misuse of logic to support his evolutionary rendering.
The writer of Genesis said Adam because he meant what he said - a separate and distinct creation of God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by doctrbill, posted 10-02-2004 11:55 PM doctrbill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by arachnophilia, posted 10-03-2004 4:39 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 74 by Amlodhi, posted 10-03-2004 2:02 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 65 of 149 (146938)
10-03-2004 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by dpardo
10-02-2004 7:53 PM


It does not state that he created them at the same time. You are interpreting that.
let's break it down, in simple english.
god created man in his own image. god made man male and female.
how does this say they were created seperately? it doesn't say woman was made from man, it says god created man: male AND female.
it's not an interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by dpardo, posted 10-02-2004 7:53 PM dpardo has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 66 of 149 (146939)
10-03-2004 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Cold Foreign Object
10-03-2004 1:10 AM


but he will flood you with rhetoric/misuse of logic to support his evolutionary rendering.
how is it evolutionary in the slightest?
and look up what an emendation is, they're been doing it for thousands of years. it's why "YHVH" is read "adonai" for instance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-03-2004 1:10 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Amlodhi, posted 10-03-2004 4:38 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 67 of 149 (146940)
10-03-2004 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by dpardo
10-02-2004 7:48 PM


dpardo responds to PaulK:
quote:
Do you honestly think God created animals and birds (male and female) in an attempt to create a suitable helper for Adam rather than just create a female version of him first?
Yes. That is precisely what the Bible says:
Genesis 2:18: And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
2:19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Are you trying to say that Gen 2:19 has no narrative connection at all to Gen 2:18? That god has the attention span of a gnat? He was worried about Adam being alone but, "Ooh! Shiny thingie!" and suddenly he's off on a completely unrelated task?
Are you seriously saying that the creation of the animals was done for some reason other than to make a helpmeet for Adam?
Then why does the Bible directly state that that was the reason for their creation?
Genesis 2:20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Are you seriously saying that in the middle of a sentence, we have a complete shift of narrative focus? The Bible is explicit in the plot:
Adam is alone and that's bad [note...I thought everything was good].
God creates all the animals and brings them to Adam, who names them, but a helpmeet is not found among the animals.
You seem to want to ignore that last plot point. What is the point of saying, "but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him," right after talking about bringing the animals to Adam, which is said right after talking about how Adam is alone, if not to say that the animals were created in order to find a helpmeet for Adam but there wasn't anything suitable?
What do you think the word "found" means?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by dpardo, posted 10-02-2004 7:48 PM dpardo has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 68 of 149 (146942)
10-03-2004 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by dpardo
10-02-2004 7:53 PM


dpardo responds to Arachnophilia:
quote:
quote:
yes. it does. at the same time. it says he created man and woman in the image of god.
It does not state that he created them at the same time. You are interpreting that.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
In Genesis 1, what was left to create by the time you get to Gen 1:26? We had light and the division of light and the separation of the firmament and the land from the waters and the plants and the sun and moon and stars and the animals.
All of that is talked about in Gen 1:1-25. Not only that, it is described as a completed action...that's part of the point of saying that "god saw that it was good."
It is only AFTER all that happens that we get to the creation of humans.
So even if we say that when god made humans, he made first the male one and then the female one, the fact of the matter is that god didn't create anything else between them. And since he did this action before the day was over, he has for all intents and purposes created them at the same time. The point behind Gen 1:27 is that god was creating humans. Therefore, the creation of humans was started when the first one was initiated and finished when the last one was completed.
When you're painting a triptych, you're not done until you've completed all three. When humans are created in Gen 1, they are not completed until both male and females are created.
Since nothing gets created in the midst of the creation of humans, then the only sane comment is to say they were created at the same time.
Please, please tell me where in Genesis 1 we find any indication that god had a sidetrack of creating yet more animals in between the creation of a male human and a female human? God had already created the animals before he got around to the humans.
This is not a question of "interpretation." This is a question of you simply misrepresenting what the text says. Are you doing so deliberately or accidentally?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by dpardo, posted 10-02-2004 7:53 PM dpardo has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 69 of 149 (146944)
10-03-2004 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by doctrbill
10-02-2004 3:34 PM


The Hebrew word adam (man) appears in both accounts but is untranslated in the second.
i guess this is a point of debate, and i'll let you and amlodhi duke it out. he knows a lot better than i do.
but it wasn't especially important to my point, seeing as how most of my post was arguing against that very point.
Some say that the word itself, which comes from a term denoting red-colored earth, is utilized as a pun in the second chapter, and might be interpreted, tongue-in-cheek, as - Earth Man.
it's bits like this that make the bible interesting.
The Bible never refers to planet earth, so this 'earth' should be taken to mean land, and the Hebrew term is frequently translated that way. Then again, even in the first chapter, we cannot assume that the writers imagined the 'earth' as a
planet. Notice that the water under the firmament is gathered into one place" and "dry land" appears (vs. 9). "God called the dry land Earth;" and he called the water "Seas." Thus: Seas are not a part of Earth. Clearly not a vision of planet earth.
will it help is i describe the traditional understand of the hebrew world?
the major difference is that it's flat. curved over the top is the sky (the firmament keeping out the waters of heaven), and underneath is a great well. the whole land is supported by four pillars, and surrounded by seas.
but no, they were clearly not thinking globe, and the water is not included. however, i do not think it wrong to say that they mean ALL the land when they say earth.
In order to understand the creation story, we must dumb down to the level of Bronze Age 'science.'
i wouldn't call it science, but i agree. it's good to take it in context. however, i think it can still be read as meaningul (if inaccurate) with modern sensibilities.
I believe the first chapter is about the origin of the universe (as the ancients imagined it to be), while the second chapter is about the origin of Hebrew ancestors.
i suppose that is an agreeable conclusion, at least in terms of what each story is concerned with.
Think about it. I believe you will find that it explains discrepancies and obviates the need to correlate these two clearly different accounts of creation.
well, no it doesn't explain the discrepancies at all. but i don't especially have a need to correlate the stories. one tells us one thing, the other something completely separate.
yes, they do bear similarity in some regards to other mesopotamian myths. i've even heard that adam may be a mangled version of a sumerian king's name. there's other similarities like the lengths of lives compared the records of king's rules: both lengthened beyond reason to appeal to greatness. no one is arguing that genesis is no distinctly mesopotamian. (although some argue that parts are quite babylonian)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by doctrbill, posted 10-02-2004 3:34 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by doctrbill, posted 10-03-2004 12:34 PM arachnophilia has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 70 of 149 (146947)
10-03-2004 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by dpardo
10-02-2004 8:20 PM


dpardo responds to me:
quote:
quote:
You are absolutely right that Gen 1:27 simply says that humans were created and doesn't mention when they were created.
But to then insist that this somehow means that Genesis 1 doesn't mention when humans were created is to simply ignore all the other verses in the chapter.
I'm not sure I understand your argument here.
If I'm looking at my day-planner and I see that written on January 15 is an entry saying, "Dinner at Andre's," and then I find another entry on February 18 saying, "Dinner at Leona's," can we say that I had dinner at Leona's after I had it at Andre's? There is no direct statement in the February 18 entry mentioning January 15 or my previous dinner. And yet, nobody would claim "that's just a matter of interpretation" if it were claimed that my dinner at Leona's was after my dinner at Andre's.
The point is that while it's absolutely true that Gen 1:27 doesn't mention if humans were created in the morning or the evening or if god had some grand Spielbergian moment with lots of lights and flashes and when the smoke clears there are male and female humans appearing at the same time or if instead god has a series of pops where each individual comes into being one at a time, it is also true that the rest of Genesis 1 explicitly points out that this event, whatever the details of its process, happens AFTER the creation of animals.
Humans are created on the sixth day.
Fowl and whales are created on the fifth day.
Fowl and whales are animals.
Therefore, since the sixth day happens AFTER the fifth day, humans are created AFTER animals.
In fact, the Bible points out in Gen 1 that humans are created AFTER everything else created that day. The text explicitly states that the land animals that were created that done were completed ("good") BEFORE god gets around to creating humans.
So once again, whether or not humans were created in the morning or at night or if they were created all at once or one at a time is irrelevant: They were created AFTER all the other animals were created and no other event happened in the middle of the creation of humans.
Notice that animals get created on two different days. The fowl and the whales are on day five. Then the Bible explicitly points out that the day ends and the next one beings. AND THEN the land animals get created.
But nothing happens when humans get created except for the creation of humans.
Thus, the plot line of Gen 1 is explicitly described with no wiggle room:
Plants, animals, humans.
There is no "interpretation" to be made here.
Gen 2, on the other hand, describes a different plot line:
Male humans, plants, animals, female human.
Even if we assume that god made humans in Gen 1 in sequential order and created the male human first and then the female human, that doesn't alleviate the contradiction between the two plot lines.
Gen 1 allows no creative event to happen between the male human and the female human. Gen 2 puts a creative event between the male human and the female human. Both cannot be true.
quote:
Genesis 1 does state that humans were created on the 6th day.
But you need to be more explicit:
Genesis 1 not only states that humans were created on the sixth day but also that they were created AFTER animals.
quote:
quote:
Now some simple questions:
1) Are fowl and whales animals?
1. No
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
Birds and cetaceans aren't animals? What are they? Plants? Fungus? Bacteria? Minerals?
I'm having a flashback to the claim that humans aren't animals, either.
quote:
Regarding the above quote, it indicates that, with reference to Eve not having been created yet, he was alone. But the animals had already been created.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
Where in Gen 2 do we find that animals were created before Adam?
Hell, let's forget the animals. Let's talk about the PLANTS.
Genesis 1:11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Since you agree that humans were created on the sixth day, I think we can then agree that plants were created BEFORE humans, yes?
But let's look at Gen 2:
Genesis 2:5: And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Is this not a direct statement that there are no plants?
Please, no semantic games about "field."
So no plant life...and then god makes a human:
Genesis 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.
2:8: And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
2:9: And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
So the timeline is, again, directly contradicted: No plants because there isn't a human, so god makes a human and then plants a garden (but I thought a man needed to till the ground), puts the man in it, AND THEN makes the trees.
So a very simple question:
When were the trees created? The third day as indicated by Gen 1 or after the creation of the male human as indicated by Gen 2?
quote:
Genesis 2:19 is where I see the apparent contradiction regarding the chronology of humans and animals.
Thank you for agreeing that the contradiction is quite apparent.
Now that you agree that the Bible contradicts itself, care to retract your statement that it doesn't?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by dpardo, posted 10-02-2004 8:20 PM dpardo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by dpardo, posted 10-03-2004 2:20 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 71 of 149 (146948)
10-03-2004 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by dpardo
10-02-2004 8:32 PM


dpardo responds to me:
quote:
If we had not already been given a chronology, it would be reasonable to assign one at this point. BUT, since we were already given one in Genesis 1, there is no logical reason to assume that we are being given a new one.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
If I were to tell you what I did today and I said this:
1) I woke up.
2) I got showered and got dressed.
3) I went to rehearsal.
4) I went to lunch.
5) I went to work.
6) I went to dinner.
7) I came home.
But then you ask me again what I did and I say this:
1) I woke up.
2) I got showered and dressed.
3) I started lunch.
4) I went to rehearsal.
5) I finished lunch.
6) I went to work.
7) I went to dinner.
8) I came home.
Wouldn't there be a logical problem? Didn't I just contradict myself? The first time around, I said I went to rehearsal and then went to lunch. The second time around, lunch shows up and is interrupted by rehearsal. Which is it? Did I start lunch first or did I start rehearsal first?
Of course there is a logical reason to assume we are being given a new one. The second description of the timeline directly contradicts the first one. Contradictions cannot be the same thing.
quote:
Genesis 2:19 is simply stating how he created the animals and the fowl of the air
There are so many things wrong with this statement I don't know where to begin.
First, it is not simply telling how. It is telling WHEN. The creation of the fowl of the air happens AFTER the creation of Adam.
Wasn't Adam created back up in Gen 2:7? So if the fowl of the air show up AFTER the creation of the first human, how could they have been created BEFORE given the previous rendition of the timeline?
And thank you very much for pointing out the "how" of it. Not only does Gen 2 contradict Gen 1 in the "when," it contradicts it in the "how," too. Here's what Gen 1 says about the "how" of fowl:
Genesis 1:20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
1:21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Here's what Gen 2 says:
Genesis 2:19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
So now we've got another contradiction: Gen 1 says fowl were created out of water. Gen 2 says they were created out of land. Which is it?
quote:
again, this is consistent with the general-specific theory
Incorrect. It actually introduces yet another inconsistency in the narrative.
I'm still having trouble believing you just said that birds and whales aren't animals....

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by dpardo, posted 10-02-2004 8:32 PM dpardo has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 72 of 149 (146961)
10-03-2004 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by dpardo
10-02-2004 7:48 PM


quote:
Do you honestly think God created animals and birds (male and female) in an attempt to create a suitable helper for Adam rather than just create a female version of him first?
That seems to be what you're saying. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
Of course I don't believe it. It's just what the Bible says.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by dpardo, posted 10-02-2004 7:48 PM dpardo has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2843 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 73 of 149 (146985)
10-03-2004 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by arachnophilia
10-03-2004 5:12 AM


Arachnophilia writes:
will it help is i describe the traditional understand of the hebrew world?
What you described is indeed considered to be the 'traditional' view and not coincidentally, virtually identical to the Babylonian model. I am of the opinion, however, that the 'traditional view' was based on an erroneous interpretation of scripture whereby "pillars of the earth," an idiom referring to the institutions of civilization, was mistaken to mean physical objects. An inscription found over the door at the university of Babylon proclaimed: The Foundations of Heaven and Earth. Even today we use the word 'Foundation' to describe some of our institutions. And we still say things like, "he moved heaven and earth" when what we really mean is, "He dealt with obstacles at various levels."
This is not an opinion which I am prepared to argue further but if you explore the uses of "foundation" in the old King James Bible you may begin to understand why, as much as I like the graphic representations of it, I am increasingly skeptical of that old interpretation. It is, I believe, a matter of physical versus spiritual interpretation.
i think it can still be read as meaningul (if inaccurate) with modern sensibilities.
I agree. To me it is most meaningful as a window on the past; a revelation of how people once imagined the cosmos.
it doesn't explain the discrepancies at all. ... one tells us one thing, the other something completely separate.
Doesn't that explain the discrepancies then? The explanation being: as you say, that they are telling us two completely separate stories.
no one is arguing that genesis is no distinctly mesopotamian. (although some argue that parts are quite babylonian)
But then, of course, Babylonian is Mesopotamian.
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by arachnophilia, posted 10-03-2004 5:12 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by arachnophilia, posted 10-04-2004 3:04 AM doctrbill has replied

Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 149 (146998)
10-03-2004 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Cold Foreign Object
10-03-2004 1:10 AM


WILLOWTREE,
Remember the last time you and I went through this? When you didn't even know there was a definite article in the text?:
quote:
From a previous post by WT
But where is this definite article in the original text?
Remember that when you were forced to concede that argument, you remarked that you would tell anyone who asked that "Amlodhi says adam should be translated ishi"? Even though I specifically pointed up the distinction between these terms by giving you the example of both usages in the first sentence of Genesis chapter 4 (which you were still unable to comprehend).
Remember that I (in frustration) told you then, "please don't volunteer to speak for me" because you still failed to comprehend what was being said to you?
And now I read this from your disingenuous mouth:
quote:
Now posted by WT
Amlodhi admits it says Adam but it should be translated ishi.
This makes me angry. This time I'm not asking you "please".
DO NOT presume to speak for me because you don't know your burro from a well-shaft.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Amlodhi
This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-03-2004 04:09 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-03-2004 1:10 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-03-2004 8:02 PM Amlodhi has replied

dpardo
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 149 (147000)
10-03-2004 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Rrhain
10-03-2004 5:32 AM


Hi Rrhain,
I don't have time this morning to address all of your points but, perhaps I can use one of your examples to try to clarify the issue.
I will try to get to your other points later on today or tomorrow morning.
Rrhain writes:
"If I'm looking at my day-planner and I see that written on January 15 is an entry saying, "Dinner at Andre's," and then I find another entry on February 18 saying, "Dinner at Leona's," can we say that I had dinner at Leona's after I had it at Andre's? There is no direct statement in the February 18 entry mentioning January 15 or my previous dinner. And yet, nobody would claim "that's just a matter of interpretation" if it were claimed that my dinner at Leona's was after my dinner at Andre's."
One of the differences between your example and the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 accounts is that you have an actual date (February 18) for "Dinner at Leona's". In the Genesis 2 accounts, we are not given a date (or day) like in Genesis 1.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Rrhain, posted 10-03-2004 5:32 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Rrhain, posted 10-07-2004 3:53 AM dpardo has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024