The Order of Genesis Two

[A Beautiful Truth]

As we all know, the order of some events differs from Gen. one and Gen. two. This is because, as most have learned, that the point of Gen. two is just narrowing in on day six, especially on man.

Here is the rub--I accept this answer for Gen. 2, but where do we know where to draw the line? How is pulling in of the reigns to "literal" justified for the instant creation of Adam and Eve from the dust, but the letting out of the reigns when it comes to the instant creation of animals, from the dust after man. It seems if we allow the order to be contrary to the stated order in Genesis two (because of the comparison to the order presented in Gen. one), then where does the "theological" allowance end and where does the literalness begin again? We know the order is wrong in chapter two, we chalk this up to it being a "theological" focus. So how are we justified in pulling in the reigns back to "literal" after we conveintly answered with "theological" the problem of the order of creation of the animals in relation to man?

If we say it is literal for all parts except the animals, I ask what justification for picking one over the other. The order is clearly amiss in comparison to chapter one, if it is because it is only a theological focus, then why is the entire chapter not just theological, how do we justify any literalness to it?

[Minnesota]

I was going to offer an opinion, but decided to check with the Guidelines first to see if I was even allowed to look in here. Well, I am, and could even be allowed to post, but with heavy restriction. Anyway, in going over the guidelines I find that your question may well violate them: "discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text." Your questions, while valid, appear to go to the very heart of Biblical integrity, casting good doubt on the book's integrity. I only bring this up so that you know that any real fruitful discussion may be hampered by the very nature of your question, and that you may want to repost in another area. Of course if the administration sees it other wise, and is willing to allow an open discussion, fine. But you may want to check on it before others answer and get Moderated.



Sticky: [READ ME] Guidelines for Biblical Languages
Jaltus

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

[George Murphy]

As we all know, the order of some events differs from Gen. one and Gen. two. This is because, as most have learned, that the point of Gen. two is just narrowing in on day six, especially on man.

Here is the rub--I accept this answer for Gen. 2, but where do we know where to draw the line? How is pulling in of the reigns to "literal" justified for the instant creation of Adam and Eve from the dust, but the letting out of the reigns when it comes to the instant creation of animals, from the dust after man. It seems if we allow the order to be contrary to the stated order in Genesis two (because of the comparison to the order presented in Gen. one), then where does the "theological" allowance end and where does the literalness begin again? We know the order is wrong in chapter two, we chalk this up to it being a "theological" focus. So how are we justified in pulling in the reigns back to "literal" after we conveintly answered with "theological" the problem of the order of creation of the animals in relation to man?

If we say it is literal for all parts except the animals, I ask what justification for picking one over the other. The order is clearly amiss in comparison to chapter one, if it is because it is only a theological focus, then why is the entire chapter not just theological, how do we justify any literalness to it?As you might guess, my answer is that the account in Genesis 2 is not "just narrowing in on day six, especially on man." It is another account of creation, one that complements (rather than contradicts) the account of Genesis 1 if one does not try to read the accounts as historical narratives.

What is the justification for saying this? The fact that the order of creation of different living things is different in the two accounts is one factor. But the whole atmosphere of the 2d account is different from the 1st - a desert scenario instead of a watery one, God getting down in the dirt to create instead of just issuing commands, &c. And the terminology is different - especially the different designations for the creator.

The focus in Gen.2 is indeed on humanity, but that's not because of a narrowing to day six. There is no trace in Genesis 2 of any connection with a six day creative scheme.

If you've continued to follow the theistic evolution thread you'll see that I've made the same points there and have gone into more detail on some aspects.

Shalom,
George

[A Beautiful Truth]

Minnesota,

I appreciate your warning, though, I believe, it is unfounded. My question does not trespass upon the heart of Biblical integrity. Christians have discussed the apparent condradiction between Gen. one and Gen. two for some time, that part is nothing new. My question is just an obvious outcropping of taking the answer that is usually given to justify the two accounts. I would be surprised if I were asked to move my question elsewhere for the reason you gave, because I am only bringing up the very words of the Bible. There is contradiction between the two accounts if the frame of reference was identical. Most realize the frame is different, so this question just naturally flows from that determination.


If you've continued to follow the theistic evolution thread you'll see that I've made the same points there and have gone into more detail on some aspects.


George, I have not looked at the thread in a while, it seemed the thread was covering ground it had already covered--I'll look again.

~Charleen

[A Beautiful Truth]

I looked it over and would like to keep this topic focused on this particular issue, so I'd like to discuss this here.

I know your take, George, I am also interested in hearing from those who take it literally, which is most who frequent here, my guess.

~Charleen

[A Beautiful Truth]

Now that a forum is open to discuss Genesis from all Christian angles, (not as the restrictions of the former Cosmogony), I'll ask to have this topic moved.

[brett]

As we all know, the order of some events differs from Gen. one and Gen. two.

What’s this “we” stuff?


This is because, as most have learned, that the point of Gen. two is just narrowing in on day six, especially on man. Here is the rub--I accept this answer for Gen. 2, but where do we know where to draw the line? How is pulling in of the reigns to "literal" justified for the instant creation of Adam and Eve from the dust, but the letting out of the reigns when it comes to the instant creation of animals, from the dust after man.

No need to draw any lines.


It seems if we allow the order to be contrary to the stated order in Genesis two (because of the comparison to the order presented in Gen. one), then where does the "theological" allowance end and where does the literalness begin again?

The literalness should have never ended. Therefore, you need to start over and check for possible errors in interpretation.


We know the order is wrong in chapter two, we chalk this up to it being a "theological" focus.

Correction, you assume the order in Gen. 2 is wrong.


So how are we justified in pulling in the reigns back to "literal" after we conveintly answered with "theological" the problem of the order of creation of the animals in relation to man?

The key with this passage and any other passage is not to slip in figurative or theological interpretations to get out of a jam. It would be wise to consult some commentaries if you really get stuck. Sarfati has a good section in his book on the hebrew grammar in this passage. And I just noticed the NIV translators are in agreement with him.


If we say it is literal for all parts except the animals, I ask what justification for picking one over the other.

None. Therefore I wouldn’t advise anyone to go that route.

The order is clearly amiss in comparison to chapter one,

wrong again.


if it is because it is only a theological focus, then why is the entire chapter not just theological, how do we justify any literalness to it?

It’s a good point. You need to pick one. Either it’s all literal or all figurative. The worst possible solution would be some sort of hybrid.

Here’s my take on Gen. 2. It’s pretty recent, so revisions might be in order.

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

God summarizes from day 2 to day 6. Since the focus of this portion of Genesis is to be on the Garden of Eden which would be filled with many plants and animals, He simply recaps for us those areas of the creation week.


8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground-trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Here’s where the focus begins. We start with God’s thought sequence after the formation of Adam and the Garden. (I’m not speaking of a temporal sequence of thought, obviously, as all of God’s thoughts are eternal. I’m speaking rather of a logical sequence of thought.)


18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

An important question: When God said (thought) this, did He have a woman in mind, or an animal? If you vote the former the rest of the interpretation will be a piece of cake.


19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

Notice my emphasis on the words “had formed,” from the NIV translation. Other translations leave out the had, but both translations are perfectly acceptable from the hebrew text (as many commentaries explain). But as I’ll show, it really doesn’t matter if you think it through.

Another question: If the author wanted to communicate the animals were created right then and there, to be auditioned as helpmates for Adam, then what was the naming thing all about? What does naming have to do with match making? This then makes it likely the naming of the animals had already taken place at another time. God was merely reflecting on it in order to explain to the reader why a different mate was necessary.


But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

It was Adam (not God) who didn’t find a suitable mate during the naming process of the land animals in the garden. Surely God knew what a suitable helper was, and didn’t need to go through the trial and error of creating animal after animal to find one. Therefore the NIV translation is much more compatible with the context and with common sense.

So back to my prior question. Did God have an animal or a woman in mind to be Adam’s companion? To have the chronology in the order you’re assuming you would have to answer, “animal” (at least initially). And then when God saw no animal would work, he decided to try something else. Can’t you see how horribly awkward that is? Rather isn’t it more natural to say that God was simply reflecting on the creatures He had already formed and had already commanded Adam to name, and used that to explain to the reader why a different helper was necessary?


21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

This is very straight forward, natural and literal. I would imaging those reading this story in the original language would have seen no conflict at all. Certainly those reading the NIV shouldn’t.

[A Beautiful Truth]

So please just focus on this and give me as brief answer as possible.

Were the animals made after man or before man, or both?

[brett]

So please just focus on this and give me as brief answer as possible.

Were the animals made after man or before man, or both?

First plants, then land animals, then Adam, then Eve. That's the most natural, literal way to understand Gen. 2.

[rogero]

So, what about Genesis 2:5-7?


...while as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted, for the LORD God had sent no rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil, but a stream was welling up out of the earth and was watering all the surface of the ground -- the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being (Heb. -- nephesh).



Sounds like man was created before the plants had sprouted. How is this to concorded with Genesis 1:11-13 where it's obvious that "he earth brought forth every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it. God saw how good it was."

So, I guess you're arguing for a delay in the manifestation of the event in Genesis 1. But, according to you YEC fideists, Genesis is supposed to be "plain, simple, straightforward, and obvious even to child." This may be asking to much from you B, as your intelligence is similiar to a small child (please forgive me all you parents of small children), but how do you obviously concord these passages?

R

[brett]

So, what about Genesis 2:5-7?


...while as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted, for the LORD God had sent no rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil, but a stream was welling up out of the earth and was watering all the surface of the ground -- the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being (Heb. -- nephesh).



You have the order right there. First there was no plants because there was no water. Then came water, then came man. No conflict with Gen 1 yet.


Sounds like man was created before the plants had sprouted. How is this to concorded with Genesis 1:11-13 where it's obvious that "he earth brought forth every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it. God saw how good it was."

Err, because the order is the same?


So, I guess you're arguing for a delay in the manifestation of the event in Genesis 1.

Sorry Rog, you're confused.


But, according to you YEC fideists, Genesis is supposed to be "plain, simple, straightforward, and obvious even to child."

Yes a child would see the order of the passage above. First no plants (because no water nor man to water), then water came enabling the plants to sprout, then man was formed. That part looks pretty straight forward to me.


This may be asking to much from you B, as your intelligence is similiar to a small child (please forgive me all you parents of small children), but how do you obviously concord these passages?

See above.

Hey by the way, "similar" is not spelled with an “iar.” Gotcha! Ho, the typo cop shoots himself in the foot! Now that’s classic. :lol:

[A Beautiful Truth]

First plants, then land animals, then Adam, then Eve. That's the most natural, literal way to understand Gen. 2.

What am I missing, Brett. Gen. 2:7 has man being made, then trees that were good for food, then in vs. 19 God made animals, then in vs. 22, we have woman being made.

So the order goes like this in Gen. 2, [b]man[b], shrubs and plants, trees, animals, woman. Of course, this is out of order if you compare with Genesis one, which has, plants, animals, [b]man[b].

These two are in contradiction if you do not realize that each account has a different focus. I do not believe the Bible contradicts itself, this is why I believe the two each have a different focus.

[brett]

What am I missing, Brett. Gen. 2:7 has man being made, then trees that were good for food, then in vs. 19 God made animals, then in vs. 22, we have woman being made.

So the order goes like this in Gen. 2, [b]man[b], shrubs and plants, trees, animals, woman. Of course, this is out of order if you compare with Genesis one, which has, plants, animals, [b]man[b].

These two are in contradiction if you do not realize that each account has a different focus. I do not believe the Bible contradicts itself, this is why I believe the two each have a different focus.

I delt with all this in my first post. I went through it verse by verse point by point. So you're missing quite a lot. I asked a couple of questions to you in that post. If you answer them I'll bet you'll start to understand. I also highlighted some words in verse 19 from the NIV which makes the meaning of the passage quite clear. I noticed you didn't comment on that. But answer the questions and if you’re still unclear I’ll try to explain it better.

[George Murphy]

I delt with all this in my first post. I went through it verse by verse point by point. So you're missing quite a lot. I asked a couple of questions to you in that post. If you answer them I'll bet you'll start to understand. I also highlighted some words in verse 19 from the NIV which makes the meaning of the passage quite clear. I noticed you didn't comment on that. But answer the questions and if you’re still unclear I’ll try to explain it better.As I pointed out on another thread ("Deep Theistic Interpretation" in the Biblical Languages 301 forum), the NIV's attempt to keep the order of creation of living things in Gen.2 open to historical harmonization with the oprder of Gen.1 just doesn't work. While they use the past perfect ("had planted") in 2:8, in 2:9 they still have a simple past ("made all kinds of trees grow"), the natural meaning of which is that the creation of trees foolowed that of the man.

Then if the past perfect of 2:19 were to be taken seriously we would have to understand God as saying, "It is not good for the made to be alone. Oh yeah - I did make those other animals. Let's see if one them is OK." N.B. - I am not here ridiculing the Bible but the interpretation which is implied by this forced harmonization.

& there is a larger point. Brett & others strain to argue that the readings of NIV are acceptable, & thus the order "could" be that of Gen.1. But one can also argue that the readings of most other versions (KJV, RSV, &c) are acceptable, & thus Gen.1 & 2 shouldn't be read as historical narrative, & thus that there's a possibility of understanding them in ways that don't conflict with the great mass of scientific evidence that the world & living things didn't come into being recently in 6 days.

So if you look at either the trees or the forest, the attempt to defend a YEC viewpoint comes up empty.

Shalom,
George

[brett]

As I pointed out on another thread ("Deep Theistic Interpretation" in the Biblical Languages 301 forum), the NIV's attempt to keep the order of creation of living things in Gen.2 open to historical harmonization with the oprder of Gen.1 just doesn't work. While they use the past perfect ("had planted") in 2:8, in 2:9 they still have a simple past ("made all kinds of trees grow"), the natural meaning of which is that the creation of trees foolowed that of the man.

Then if the past perfect of 2:19 were to be taken seriously we would have to understand God as saying, "It is not good for the made to be alone. Oh yeah - I did make those other animals. Let's see if one them is OK." N.B. - I am not here ridiculing the Bible but the interpretation which is implied by this forced harmonization.

& there is a larger point. Brett & others strain to argue that the readings of NIV are acceptable, & thus the order "could" be that of Gen.1. But one can also argue that the readings of most other versions (KJV, RSV, &c) are acceptable, & thus Gen.1 & 2 shouldn't be read as historical narrative, & thus that there's a possibility of understanding them in ways that don't conflict with the great mass of scientific evidence that the world & living things didn't come into being recently in 6 days.

So if you look at either the trees or the forest, the attempt to defend a YEC viewpoint comes up empty.

Shalom,
George

I'm encouraged that someone, at least, understood my post. I'm disappointed no one's attempted to answer the two challenging questions in it. I think these seal the case for a literal interpretation of chapter 2. Got to run, but I’ll comment further later.

[Augustine2004]

I don't see that Gen 2:4 to 7 contain the notion that plants and animals came after man. This is merely a skipping summary, with the emphasis on man. Notice the contrast: no plants, no animals, no men -- then suddenly man.

The ancient Hebrew loved dramatic contrast like that. I simply see no warrant to think these verses are intented to teach that animals and plants came after the creation of man.

[George Murphy]

I don't see that Gen 2:4 to 7 contain the notion that plants and animals came after man. This is merely a skipping summary, with the emphasis on man. Notice the contrast: no plants, no animals, no men -- then suddenly man.

The ancient Hebrew loved dramatic contrast like that. I simply see no warrant to think these verses are intented to teach that animals and plants came after the creation of man.But what is the warrant for assuming that plants & animals were there before the man was created? As you say, "no plants, no animals, no men -- then suddenly man." That's the way the text reads.

More precisely - what's the warrant for assuming that plants & animals were there before the man was created if you don't tacitly assume that Gen.2 is just focusing in on part of the account of Gen.1? If you'd never read Gen.1:1-2:4a & just started with 2:4b, would there be anything in the text to give the slightest hint that plants & animals were present at the start?

Shalom,
George

[kuboes1831]

But what is the warrant for assuming that plants & animals were there before the man was created? As you say, "no plants, no animals, no men -- then suddenly man." That's the way the text reads.

More precisely - what's the warrant for assuming that plants & animals were there before the man was created if you don't tacitly assume that Gen.2 is just focusing in on part of the account of Gen.1? If you'd never read Gen.1:1-2:4a & just started with 2:4b, would there be anything in the text to give the slightest hint that plants & animals were present at the start?

Shalom,
George

Surely, if you insist that Genesis must be read literally then either Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 or both Genesis 1 & 2 must be false?

You can't have it both ways.

[Augustine2004]

But what is the warrant for assuming that plants & animals were there before the man was created? As you say, "no plants, no animals, no men -- then suddenly man." That's the way the text reads.

More precisely - what's the warrant for assuming that plants & animals were there before the man was created if you don't tacitly assume that Gen.2 is just focusing in on part of the account of Gen.1? If you'd never read Gen.1:1-2:4a & just started with 2:4b, would there be anything in the text to give the slightest hint that plants & animals were present at the start?Gen 2:4 to 7 simply says nothing either way. Nobody has any reason to think after reading just these verses, 'Oh, I see, plants came before/after man.' If we insist on finding an answer to the question of which came first, man or plants, from the Bible, we have to look elsewhere.

[Augustine2004]

Surely, if you insist that Genesis must be read literally then either Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 or both Genesis 1 & 2 must be false?

You can't have it both ways.Not sure I understand. Are you thinking that if we read Genesis literally, then a part of it must be false? Well, that's true, depending on how one reads Genesis. However, are you thinking that there is no third way, namely Genesis is all true when read properly?

[George Murphy]

Surely, if you insist that Genesis must be read literally then either Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 or both Genesis 1 & 2 must be false?

You can't have it both ways.Yes - IF Genesis must be read "literally" (i.e., as scientific report &/or historical narrative). But that's to proceed in the wrong order. The correct order, at least for Christians, is:

Genesis 1 & 2, as parts of scriptures, are true & authoritative.
They do not agree when read "literally" (in the above sense).
Therefore one or both of them should not be read "literally."

This being the case, we are open to the possibility that neither of them should be read "literally." The fact that scientific evidence about the age of the universe & earth, cosmic & biological evolution &c doesn't agree with such a "literal" reading of either text then need not disturb us. Instead, we are free to use the theological insights of both texts to help in understanding the deeper meaning of the scientific results - e.g., to see cosmic & biological evolution as God's creative activity.

Shalom,
George

[brett]

But what is the warrant for assuming that plants & animals were there before the man was created? As you say, "no plants, no animals, no men -- then suddenly man." That's the way the text reads.

This seems so simple I'm not sure why I'm asking. If the hebrew grammar leaves it open in chapter 2, why not consider the explicit information about sequence in chapter one? I mean sheesh it almost sounds like you’re trying to force a contradiction in order to justify an alternative interpretation.


More precisely - what's the warrant for assuming that plants & animals were there before the man was created if you don't tacitly assume that Gen.2 is just focusing in on part of the account of Gen.1? If you'd never read Gen.1:1-2:4a & just started with 2:4b, would there be anything in the text to give the slightest hint that plants & animals were present at the start?

Probably not. Therefore if chapter 1 was never found, many may have misunderstood ch. 2. But that would be true in several cases throughout the Bible. If we only had the book of Acts, most would probably assume Judas jumped off a cliff to commit suicide. But from the gospels we know he hung himself and therefore the rope probably broke. What exactly are you asking us to do George, completely ignore the context? Should we spiritualize Acts and Matthew because Acts by itself might have been interpreted differently? The fact is, Gen. 2 uses grammar that is not explicit about the sequence of events. Gen. 1 uses grammar that is. Even if Gen. 2 could be misunderstood by itself, why would I ignore the previous chapter?

[brett]

Gen 2:4 to 7 simply says nothing either way. Nobody has any reason to think after reading just these verses, 'Oh, I see, plants came before/after man.' If we insist on finding an answer to the question of which came first, man or plants, from the Bible, we have to look elsewhere.

And just to build on this:

According to hebrew experts, chapter 2 is written is such a way that sequence could be interpreted several ways. It’s open basically and therefore context is needed to determine exact meaning. So I would assume those reading this in the original language would not have the same confusion of those reading an english translation (the NIV perhaps being an exception).

[brett]

Yes - IF Genesis must be read "literally" (i.e., as scientific report &/or historical narrative). But that's to proceed in the wrong order. The correct order, at least for Christians, is:

Genesis 1 & 2, as parts of scriptures, are true & authoritative.
They do not agree when read "literally" (in the above sense).
Therefore one or both of them should not be read "literally."

This being the case, we are open to the possibility that neither of them should be read "literally." The fact that scientific evidence about the age of the universe & earth, cosmic & biological evolution &c doesn't agree with such a "literal" reading of either text then need not disturb us. Instead, we are free to use the theological insights of both texts to help in understanding the deeper meaning of the scientific results - e.g., to see cosmic & biological evolution as God's creative activity.

Shalom,
George

In other words, even if Gen. 1 and 2 really are in harmony, it doesn't matter. Infallible radiometric dating can’t ever be doubted. Therefore we must go back and reinterpret the Bible to make it fit.

[kuboes1831]

In other words, even if Gen. 1 and 2 really are in harmony, it doesn't matter. Infallible radiometric dating can’t ever be doubted. Therefore we must go back and reinterpret the Bible to make it fit.

The vast age of the earth was demonstrated by geologists well before 1800 whereas radiometric age-dating was first used in about 1905.

Brett, can you tell me why most evangelicals from about 1800 believed the earth was ancient and rejected ideas that it was only 6000 years old - and that was before evolution reared its ugly/beautiful head?

Gen 1 and 2 are not in harmony if we take them literally but only if we allow some kind o f realisation that they are not literal and must be taken in some kind of poetic or figurative sense, which is not the same as saying it is untrue.
If Gen 2 is literal how come the rivers in verses 11-14 were still in existence when Genesis was written. Wouldnt it be wonderful to say that they were a later addition as some "YEC types" said in the 1820s. According to Mortenson of AIG they were following sound biblical critical methods!!! (Probably no less sound that AIG's approach to bible today!)

[George Murphy]

This seems so simple I'm not sure why I'm asking. If the hebrew grammar leaves it open in chapter 2, why not consider the explicit information about sequence in chapter one? I mean sheesh it almost sounds like you’re trying to force a contradiction in order to justify an alternative interpretation.
.....................

Probably not. Therefore if chapter 1 was never found, many may have misunderstood ch. 2. But that would be true in several cases throughout the Bible. If we only had the book of Acts, most would probably assume Judas jumped off a cliff to commit suicide. But from the gospels we know he hung himself and therefore the rope probably broke. What exactly are you asking us to do George, completely ignore the context? Should we spiritualize Acts and Matthew because Acts by itself might have been interpreted differently? The fact is, Gen. 2 uses grammar that is not explicit about the sequence of events. Gen. 1 uses grammar that is. Even if Gen. 2 could be misunderstood by itself, why would I ignore the previous chapter?Of course context is important. But 2 other matters also must be given attention.

1) One also has to give full respect to the different points of view, theological emphases, styles &c of different writers & different texts. If you read, e.g., Matthew & Luke-Acts with the a priori assumption that they're essentially saying the same things in the same ways then you flatten out both texts and miss their distinctive theological emphases.

2) It simply cannot be assumed that everything in the Bible is to be read as historical narrative. While historical harmonization is appropriate and necessary for some texts, it may badly distort other texts to force them into the mold of historical narrative. You don't read a love letter in the same way you read one from your lawyer.

Illustration: I & II Chronicles covers pretty much the same ground as II Samuel & I & II Kings. Both of them have the appearance of historical narrative. But a careful read quickly notices important differences. Chronicles leaves out almost all the bad stuff about the kings of Judah (David's adultery & murder, Solomon's idolatry &c). The numbers in Chronicles
(sizes of armies, wealth) are exaggerated with respect to Samuel-Kings, sometimes to the extent of seeming completely unrealistic. There are other differences.

What's going on? Well, Samuel-Kings is pretty much historical narrative, though with some theological interpretation. Chronicles was written later & uses the history of Judah to draw a picture of the Messianic kingdom. Of course David doesn't commit adultery or Solomon idolatry there because the Messiah won't do those things! Of course there's fabulous wealth because that will be the way it is in the Kingdom of God!

Now you'll see that I have in fact "harmonized" these texts - but at a theological level. Harmonization of them as historical accounts however - e.g., figuring out some scenario by which David paid both 50 shekels of silver (II Sam.24:24) & 600 shekels of gold (I Chron.21:25) for the site of the Temple - is not only a waste of time but ignores what the writer of Chronicles was doing.

Similar things can be said about Gen.1 & 2 but it's helpful to consider 1st an example that's free from the heat of debates about creation & evolution. If you don't get it with the Kings-Chronicles example then there's no point in discussing Genesis.

Shalom,
George

[grmorton]

In other words, even if Gen. 1 and 2 really are in harmony, it doesn't matter. Infallible radiometric dating can’t ever be doubted. Therefore we must go back and reinterpret the Bible to make it fit.


Just like the Bible was re-interpreted to allow the earth to go round the sun. As Kuboes points out, it isn't just radiometric dating that indicates an extremely old earth. Rates of deposition are so slow that one can prove an earth much older than 6 kyr very easily.

[attachment=1]

This picture shows a major unconformity in the eastern US.

The line was one shot by Texaco along the Alabama/Mississippi border just NE of Meridian, Mississippi. The reference is A. W. Bally, _Seismic Expression of Structural Styles, Vol. 3, AAPG Studies in Geology Series, #15,, p. 3.4.1-82. It shows a wonderful example of why slow sedimentation must be the rule and presents a big problem for the global flood. I apologize for the size (418 kb) but it was necessary in order to show the detail I wanted to show. A word about seismic. The black peaks and grey troughs are the reflections of sound off of various rock layers which are in the earth. By reflecting the sound, we can produce a picture, like this, of what the earth looks like under one's feet. The picture is about 20 km of seismic data. It can be seen that the valley in the unconformity is about 3 km wide. The thrust block is about 16 km or 9 miles long.

At the top of the section are the sediments of the Atlantic coastal plains. They are flatish-lying dipping slightly to the SE. They are about 3500 feet thick and consist mostly of sands and shales. They lie on top of a major unconformity which separates the Paleozoic Appalachian sediments from the Atlantic Coastal plain sediments. Below the unconformity is the Paleozoic sediments which consist not only of sands and shales but also very thick piles of carbonate and dolomite. dolomite. They are around 18,500 feet thick. This is determined by the velocity of sound in those sediments. Rocks in the Paleozoic are almost always faster than rocks in the younger Mesozoic and Mesozoic rocks in general are even faster than those from the Tertiary.

If you look below the unconformity you will find a thrust fault having thrusted the Paleozoic sediments over on top of themselves Bed a is marked on both sides of the thrust fault and one can clearly see that it is over thrusted on top of itself. The friction of the thrust plane against the upper part of the thrust caused the sediments to be folded. The fold was then eroded. Since bed A to the right is buried by 1.3 seconds of Paleozoic sediment (approximately 10,000 feet), yet it intersects the unconformity where it is covered by NO Paleozoic sediment, this means that 10,000 feet of sediment was eroded from the point marked 'hill'. If you look at the sediments just under the unconformity on the right and move to the left you will see layer after layer erosionally truncated by the unconformity until you get to hill where bed A is at the surface of the unconformity.

Where I marked a hill, If you look at the unconformity, you will see that it drops down at that point. the flat reflectors above are clearly onlapping the unconformable surface against the hill. The valley was eroded into the underlying Paleozoic sediments PRIOR to the deposition of the Mesozoic sediment. If you look just to the right of the hill, under the word valley, above the unconformity you will see a black reflector which runs into the hill to the left and then into the unconformity on the right. The relationship between this reflector and the unconformity shows that the valley to the right of the hill was infilled in a rather gentle way otherwise the sediments would be chaotic. This valley was probably an arm of the ocean at one point because the sediments that fill it are marine as are all the Atlantic Coastal Plain sediments.

After the Mesozoic sediments were deposited, the entire area was slightly tilted to the SE.

The sequence of events cause great problems for the concept of a global flood. Global flood advocates always say that fossilization can only occur during catastrophic events such as the flood. Well there are fossiliferous Paleozoic sediments below the unconformity as well as above. Thus the flood advocate must hold that all the sediment in this picture is from the flood. This means that during the flood 18,500 feet of Paleozoic sediment must have been deposited. It must then have hardened. Why? Because of the way the thrusting deformed the rocks. This is not a soft-sediment type of deformation. The upper thrust block moved as a solid block. If the sediments had been soft, this couldn't have happened. Soft ooze and mush won't transmit forces for 9 miles. Assuming that the Paleozoic constituted half of the flood's time, then in 6 months we must deposit 18,500 feet of sediment. This is a rate of 102 feet per day. There are slow-moving invertebrate fossils at the bottom of the Appalachian Paleozoic as well as at the top. All sorts of stationary shell-fish are found throughout the Paleozoic strata. Why everything wasn't at the bottom of the pile, after deposition of the first 102 feet on the first day, I can't comprehend. A further problem is the burrows which are found throughout the entire 18,500 feet of sediment. One must have exceptionally rapid burrowers in order to thoroughly burrow 102 feet of strata a day. That is enough sediment to cover a 10 story building each day. Next time you drive down the road, look at a ten story building and imagine it covered in sediment in one day and thoroughly burrowed by thousands of animals. Burrowed in such a fashion where the excavated sediments make a pile around the burrow which are then covered by the next layer which is a different lithology.

After the deposition of 18,500 feet of strata, and it's hardening (it takes lots of time for shales to de-water, yet we see no mega water escape structures in this sedimentary pile either), we must then have the time to thrust the Paleozoic section creating huge mountains (the Appalachians). After this, we must have time for the erosion of 10,000 feet of HARDENED sediment, which then becomes the unconformity surface. Then we must cover, in a gentle way, the entire area with 3,500 feet of Mesozoic sediment. This is a rate of 19 feet a day assuming that the Mesozoic here represented 180 days of flood deposition. One could hardly say that 19 feet a day of sedimentation is 'gentle'. 19 feet of sediment where I lived a few years ago would nearly cover my 2 story house.

I don't see how to explain this in a global flood/young-earth scenario.

Consider karsts.

Karsts are due to cave collapse. Florida is a perfect example of a karsted terrain. Caves, carved out of the limestone by the movement of fresh rain water collapse and cause round sinkholes. Watching the sinkhole formation in Florida we know several things about it. It doesn’t occur every single day. We also know that it takes time to carve the caves out to the point that they will become structurally unstable. We also know that when a cave collapses, the sediment above it falls into the cave and forms a rubble. We also know that the sinkholes (karsts) are circular in shape.
Now, what are we to think when we find buried karsted terrain? Especially, what are we to think when we find these karsts very deep in the geologic record with evidence that the collapse occurred during the middle of the geologic column?

The following is taken from B. A. Hardage et al, “3-D Seismic Evidence of the Effects of Carbonate Karst Collapse on Overlying Clastic Stratigraphy and Reservoir Compartmentalization,” Proceedings of the Natural Gas Conference Emerging Technologies for the Natural Gas Industry, Dept. of Energy, 1997 http://www.netl.doe.gov/publication...7_pdf/NG4-1.PDF



The Ordovician Ellenburger Formation is a limestone and dolomite formation which covers large parts of West Texas. The dolomite is an important feature relating to the time required to form the Ellenburger as we see it today. Dolomite is a calcium-magnesium limestone. We will return to this important point below. The Ellenburger is also oolitic (small round carbonate grains like those we see taking months to form today in the Bahamas), and it has small sponge bioherms (see Wilson 1986, p. 98). These two items show that it took time for the Ellenburger to be deposited. It simply couldn't have been dumped into place in a couple of days.

Within the YEC view (even within David Tyler’s view that the Cambrian and Ordovician are the only flood deposits), this formation would be deposited by the flood. Shortly after the deposition of the Ellenberger it had to be lithified. How do we know? Because there is an erosional unconformity at the top of the Ellenburger and below the next higher bed, the Simpson Formation.

But what is interesting, is the age of the dolomitization of the Ellenburger limestones. There are two views of dolomite, which is a calcium magnesium carbonate rather than a calcium carbonate. Some have argued that dolomite was laid down initially and other have argued that it was limestone first and then chemical reactions changed it to dolomite. There is support for this latter view in the case of the Ellenburger. Some of the limestone cobbles found in conglomerates of the Marathon fold belt in SW Texas (where the Haymond Formation is) clearly come from the Ellenburger, but they are all limestone. Wilson states:

"A related example is found in the Ordovician exotic boulders in the Marathon fold belt of West Texas. The blocks derived from the Lower Ordovician Ellenburger group are practically all limestone whereas the environmentally equivalent shelf facies is highly dolomitized. The best interpretation is that Ellenburger dolomitization occurred after the boulders were emplaced (i.e., in late Canadian and Middle Ordovician time during the formation of the widespread North American pre-Simpson unconformity)." James Lee Wilson, Carbonate Facies in Geologic History, (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1986), p. 317

Thus it appears that the Ellenburger was initially deposited as a carbonate and later changed to a dolomite. This too would take time because it means that pore waters must flow through the rock and change the calcium carbonate to calcium-magnesium carbonate. And this must occur over a vast area--i.e. most of Texas.

Another interesting item is that during the erosional interval, caves were formed in the Ellenburger. There was enough time for the caves to form speleothems, formations of limestone formed only in caves. Loucks writes:

"The initial brecciation and fracturing are well documented to be associated with cave formation and collapse. The collapse starts at the surface contemporaneous with cavern formation and continues into the subsurface to at least 9,000 ft of burial. Cave formation is evidenced by (1) detrital cave-sediment fill, (2) Upper Ordovician to Mississippian conodonts in the sediment fill, (3) speleothems, and (4) lateral extent of brecciated pods. Paleocave collapse is the origin of most Ellenburger brecciation and fracturing. Boxwork structure and higher temperature baroque dolomite cements are evidence of thermobaric brecciation. Boxwork structure is composed of closely spaced dolomite-filled fractures on the scale of decimeters to millimeters. The host is commonly dissolved, leaving an open boxwork. The baroque dolomite cements passively fill the void spaces created by cave processes. Tectonic fractures cut host rock, lithified breccias, and lithified sediment fill. They have relatively strong directional patterns. " R. G. Loucks, "Origin of Lower Ordovician Ellenburger Group Brecciated and Fractured Reservoirs in West Texas: Paleocave, Thermobaric, Tectonic, or All of the Above?" AAPG Convention Salt Lake City, 2003. http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/sl2003/techprogram/paper_78591.htm

These caves had to be formed by freshwater flow, not marine waters. Marine waters are saturated with calcium carbonate and thus can't effect a net erosion of limestones required for cave formation. Stalactites and other dripstone speleothems simply won't form underwater. Thus, the Ellenburger would have had to have been above the waters of the global flood during the formation of the caves. This raises a question of how these beds, buried as deep as 11,000 feet today were above flood waters when they were eroded. These caves didn’t collapse for several million years. Below is a seismic line from the above article. It show the effect of the Ellenburger ( below 1.2 seconds) cave collapse on the sediments above. These vertical collapse structures are 2500 feet tall and the karsts on the right are 500 feet or so wide. The one to the left is probably 3000 feet wide.

[attachment=2]

The sequence of events is this: Ellenburger was deposited with enough time for oolites and sponge bioherms to form.. Since it is impossible to deposit a hole in loose sediment, the Ellenburger had to lithify prior to the cave formation. Cobbles found in the Marathon Fold Belt show that the Ellenburger had lithified before the erosional event--something not expected in a global flood scenario. Then the Ellenburger had to have lots of fresh water run through it, carving out the caves. And there had to be time for the stalactites and stalagmites to be formed. But the caves didn’t collapse just then. The Ellenburger was then buried by younger sediment up to the Pennsylvanian aged Bend Conglomerates, of which, the Pennsylvanian Caddo is the uppermost member. These sediments then had to lithify because the cave breccia found in oil well cores taken from the collapse structures show angular cobbles of rocks from the overlying formations. Today the Caddo, in the area of this study, is 4800 feet deep in this area and it is 2500 feet above the Ellenburger. This means that the lithification of 2500 feet of strata had to occur prior to cave collapse. Then the cave collapsed causing a major and very deep sinkhole. The red arrow at about .8 seconds shows the level at which the sinkhole ceases affecting the sedimentation.

The 3D seismic shows that the sinkholes are vertical. The maps of these two members (Caddo and beneath it the Vineyard) are shown below. They show the circular collapse sinkholes (karsts) are vertically above each other on the structural maps. These two horizons are separated by about a 1000 feet of rock. This map is the upper surface, the Caddo:

[attachment=3]
Compare this with the lower Vineyard structural map:

[attachment=4]

Everything in these karsted terrains show that much time is needed to deposit the geologic column. The questions YECs need to ask themselves.

1.How long does it take to deposit the Cambrian rocks beneath the Ellenburger?
2.How long does it take for oolites and sponge bioherms to form?
3.How long did it take for the Ellenburger to lithify?
4.How long did it take for the erosional interval to deposit the Ellenburger limestone cobbles in the Marathon Fold belt?
5.How does freshwater flow through the Ellenburger, when it is a marine deposit and was supposedly deposited by marine waters of the global flood?
6.How long does it take for stalactites and stalagmites to be formed in the Ellenburger caves? How long does it take to erode the caves?
7.How long did it take for magnesium-rich pore waters to flow through the vast area of the western half of Texas to change the calcium carbonate Ellenburger into a calcium-magnesium carbonate we see today?
8.How long did it take for the sediments above the Ellenburger up to the Caddo to lithify?

It is doubtful that creationists will have answers for this.

Now my standard questions for the YECs to ask themselves.

YECs simply do not learn of these things in the YEC propaganda literature. By only reading YEC material, the young-earther only hears that which agrees with his world view. That is an assured method to only know half of the story. The many posts I have been presenting are telling you the part of the story that AIG simply ignores because they don’t want to listen either. I have shown the pictures of these features. What do you think is telling you the truth? The pictures or AiG and ICR which never publishes pictures like these?

If one wants to see more of this on seismic data, look at page 7 of http://www.ireservoir.com/Download_...adUsersMtng.pdf

Brett, please explain this data in the context of a global flood or acknowledge that it isn't only radiometric dating which indicates an old earth.

[George Murphy]

Just like the Bible was re-interpreted to allow the earth to go round the sun. As Kuboes points out, it isn't just radiometric dating that indicates an extremely old earth. Rates of deposition are so slow that one can prove an earth much older than 6 kyr very easily.
.........................

This picture shows a major unconformity in the eastern US.

The line was one shot by Texaco along the Alabama/Mississippi border just NE of Meridian, Mississippi. The reference is A. W. Bally, _Seismic Expression of Structural Styles, Vol. 3, AAPG Studies in Geology Series, #15,, p. 3.4.1-82. It shows a wonderful example of why slow sedimentation must be the rule and presents a big problem for the global flood.
..............................................

If one wants to see more of this on seismic data, look at page 7 of http://www.ireservoir.com/Download_...adUsersMtng.pdf

Brett, please explain this data in the context of a global flood or acknowledge that it isn't only radiometric dating which indicates an old earth.Glenn -
This is unfair to Brett. What's important for determining the age of the earth is traditional understandings of Genesis, not the way the world really is!

Shalom,
George

[grmorton]

Glenn -
This is unfair to Brett. What's important for determining the age of the earth is traditional understandings of Genesis, not the way the world really is!

Shalom,
George


I am sorry. I didn't realize that observational data was excluded from biblical interpretation. May I have a thousand lashes with a wet noodle.

[Starkman]

It would seem remarkably obvious to the Ancients that Gen 1 & 2 have a contradiction, if that's what is in fact happening. So, I would think someone wouldn't have been so stupid--the contradictive portions being devastatingly close to each other--to have put them right next to each other. Me thinks there was something else they were after, completely disregarding the idea of "contradiction."

Ancients! You can never keep up with them, you know!

Starkman

[brett]

It would seem remarkably obvious to the Ancients that Gen 1 & 2 have a contradiction, if that's what is in fact happening. So, I would think someone wouldn't have been so stupid--the contradictive portions being devastatingly close to each other--to have put them right next to each other. Me thinks there was something else they were after, completely disregarding the idea of "contradiction."

Ancients! You can never keep up with them, you know!

Starkman

I'm still laughing about how stubbornly you guys believe there is a contradiction, even though the hebrew experts and the NIV translators are telling you otherwise. I’ve still not heard anyone refute the NIV’s translation as being invalid. This is simply your dogmatism speaking. This pet verse was your excuse for not believing Genesis. But now that the language experts have set the record straight, you’ve resorted to plugging your ear and yelling la la la la. Hey, suite yourself.

[rogero]

It would seem remarkably obvious to the Ancients that Gen 1 & 2 have a contradiction, if that's what is in fact happening. So, I would think someone wouldn't have been so stupid--the contradictive portions being devastatingly close to each other--to have put them right next to each other. Me thinks there was something else they were after, completely disregarding the idea of "contradiction."

Ancients! You can never keep up with them, you know!

Starkman


You're confusing me (which, admittedly is quite easy to do!), so do think there's a contradiction or don't you? Do you have a way of reconciling Genesis 1 and 2 in a way that a small child (or an ignoramus like me) could understand? Unlike our cute li'l jock friend B, I don't accept the NIV as the infalliable English translation.

R

[grmorton]

It would seem remarkably obvious to the Ancients that Gen 1 & 2 have a contradiction, if that's what is in fact happening. So, I would think someone wouldn't have been so stupid--the contradictive portions being devastatingly close to each other--to have put them right next to each other. Me thinks there was something else they were after, completely disregarding the idea of "contradiction."

Ancients! You can never keep up with them, you know!

Starkman

Post #27 Brett :bump:

[George Murphy]

I'm still laughing about how stubbornly you guys believe there is a contradiction, even though the hebrew experts and the NIV translators are telling you otherwise. I’ve still not heard anyone refute the NIV’s translation as being invalid. This is simply your dogmatism speaking. This pet verse was your excuse for not believing Genesis. But now that the language experts have set the record straight, you’ve resorted to plugging your ear and yelling la la la la. Hey, suite yourself.Your laughter is apparently taking the place of answering my post #15. & speaking of delayed responses, when are you going to give a YEC explanation of the data that Glenn gave in post #27?

Brett, your tactics are now quite obvious to all of us. You quietly ignore all the cogent arguments, scientific and theological, against your position, and think that you can conceal that with rhetoric like that above. "The" Hebrew experts: Do you seriously think all "the" Hebrew experts agree with the NIV? If that were the case, why would NEB & RSV translate it differently? What you're in fact thrilled about is that you've found one version that agrees with your preconceptions.

I don't think you're stupid & suspect that the truth is gradually getting through to you. You wouldn't be shouting so loudly if it weren't. I hope that you'll know where to go for help when a crisis of faith does come, & that you'll be able to maintain faith in Christ when all the YEC stuff has gone poof.

Shalom,
George

[kofh2u]

Gen 1 and 2 are not in harmony if we take them literally but only if we allow some kind o f realisation that they are not literal and must be taken in some kind of poetic or figurative sense, which is not the same as saying it is untrue.


Yes!

Some rational idea ought be assumed to have been the intention in this book.

Certainly, more.

A profound idea. One that need wait, as Daniel was told. This bible MUST be what it has be so long described as, the Greatest Book ever written. Why should we settle for so easy as a literal but insignificant meaning?

Taking even more liberty than found in the Freudian Bible, I would propose something like this, for instance:

Gen. 2:10 And a river of sensory inputs went out of this brain of man to stimulate that mind created to image God; and from thence it was parted into the Four Jungian Functions of the Psyche.

Gen. 2:11 The name of the first river is the Jungian Function, Thinking: that is it which compasseth the whole of Logic, where there is the Superego (T);

Gen. 2:12 And the value of that facility is good: there is Mathematical analogy there, and Logical modeling of "Father Nature's Universe."

Gen. 2:13 And the name of the second river flowing throught the Eden of man's mind is the Jungian Function Sensation (S): the same is it that compasseth the whole land of the Libido.

Gen. 2:14 And the name of the third Jungian Function is Anima, Intuition, (N): that is it which entertaineth spiritualisms and the metaphysical. And the fourth river of human thought is the Jungian Function called Feeling, (F), originating in the concepts of man's Self.

Gen. 2:15 And Father Nature took man, whom he had made to image His reality, and put into him, his Human Psyche, to think and to abstract mentally, imaging a schmata identical to the external Creation without.

[brett]

Unlike our cute li'l jock friend B

:rofl:

[brett]

Your laughter is apparently taking the place of answering my post #15. & speaking of delayed responses, when are you going to give a YEC explanation of the data that Glenn gave in post #27?

Um, tell you what. I laid out my case in post 7, No one has touched it. The debate here is about the harmony (or lack thereof) of Gen. 1 and 2. Why doesn’t someone tell me where my reasoning went awry in that post and then we can move on. You see George I’m a lot like you. I don’t like it when my posts are ignored. And, hey, you just may find some of the answers there you’re looking for.

[George Murphy]

Um, tell you what. I laid out my case in post 7, No one has touched it. The debate here is about the harmony (or lack thereof) of Gen. 1 and 2. Why doesn’t someone tell me where my reasoning went awry in that post and then we can move on. You see George I’m a lot like you. I don’t like it when my posts are ignored. And, hey, you just may find some of the answers there you’re looking for.The claim that "nobody has touched it" is false, My post 14 (apologies for calling it 15 earlier - 15 is your post in which you quoted my 14 in full but said nothing about its arguments) pointed out it's weaknesses. Expanding on that a bit -

The NIV with 2 past perfects at important points is grammatically legitimate but when the verbs translated that way are read in content the results are at awkward. Thus you have to say, e.g.,

If the author wanted to communicate the animals were created right then and there, to be auditioned as helpmates for Adam, then what was the naming thing all about? What does naming have to do with match making? This then makes it likely the naming of the animals had already taken place at another time. God was merely reflecting on it in order to explain to the reader why a different mate was necessary.I.e., contrary to the way you say you're going to proceed, you're not simply reading the text as it stands. You're asking what seems most reasonable to you rather than what the author of the text said.

Nobody has ever said that Gen.2 couldn't be read in the way you suggest. The question is rather whether it seems at all like a natural way to read the text. The likelihood that it isn't is strengthed when one realizes other indications that Gen.1 & Gen.2 are different accounts. The differences in the whole atmospheres of the stories, the ways in which God's creative work is understood, linguistic usage & the different (complementary, not contradictory) ways in which relations between men & women are described should also be noted. (I have pointed out the 1st of these 3 differences earlier.)

So now let's "move on" - including your answer to Glenn's post.

Shalom,
George

[grmorton]

It’s a good point. You need to pick one. Either it’s all literal or all figurative. The worst possible solution would be some sort of hybrid.

Here’s my take on Gen. 2. It’s pretty recent, so revisions might be in order.

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

God summarizes from day 2 to day 6. Since the focus of this portion of Genesis is to be on the Garden of Eden which would be filled with many plants and animals, He simply recaps for us those areas of the creation week.

how exactly can this passage be a recap? It doesn't recap the creation of the sun, the moon, the waters. In the passage that is supposedly being recapped (Genesis 1) there is no mention of waters from streams watering the plants. IF this is a recap, it is recapping things that are not in the original.

...



18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

An important question: When God said (thought) this, did He have a woman in mind, or an animal? If you vote the former the rest of the interpretation will be a piece of cake.

Both. Most women I know are both women and mammals(which of course are animals). A mammal being defined as an animal having hair over the body and mammary glands which are used to nurse the young. Most women I know have precisely two mammary glands arranged in a quite interesting fashion. Maybe you haven't noticed that aspect of the feminine physique but I can assure you it is there. My female cat has eight but they are not quite so interesting.

Women also have very similar uterine structure to all the animals. That makes them animals as well as women. So to answer this question, God had in mind both woman and animal to be the helpmeet of Adam.




19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

Notice my emphasis on the words “had formed,” from the NIV translation. Other translations leave out the had, but both translations are perfectly acceptable from the hebrew text (as many commentaries explain). But as I’ll show, it really doesn’t matter if you think it through.

Another question: If the author wanted to communicate the animals were created right then and there, to be auditioned as helpmates for Adam, then what was the naming thing all about? What does naming have to do with match making? This then makes it likely the naming of the animals had already taken place at another time. God was merely reflecting on it in order to explain to the reader why a different mate was necessary.

I agree with you.



But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

It was Adam (not God) who didn’t find a suitable mate during the naming process of the land animals in the garden. Surely God knew what a suitable helper was, and didn’t need to go through the trial and error of creating animal after animal to find one. Therefore the NIV translation is much more compatible with the context and with common sense.

So back to my prior question. Did God have an animal or a woman in mind to be Adam’s companion? To have the chronology in the order you’re assuming you would have to answer, “animal” (at least initially). And then when God saw no animal would work, he decided to try something else. Can’t you see how horribly awkward that is? Rather isn’t it more natural to say that God was simply reflecting on the creatures He had already formed and had already commanded Adam to name, and used that to explain to the reader why a different helper was necessary?

Women, like men, are animals. Our bodies are not different in any significant way from the bodies of the chimpanzees. We both have brains, we both have the same sexual equipment, we both have stomachs, we both have lungs, we both die when bopped on the head with a meteor. We are mammalian animals.



21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

This is very straight forward, natural and literal. I would imaging those reading this story in the original language would have seen no conflict at all. Certainly those reading the NIV shouldn’t.

I believe this happened as well but it is done in a way that is miraculous (unprovable) and which maintains our genetic connection to the apes.

Now, I have answered your precious post # 7. Have the courtesy to answer my post on the age of the earth? Or do you lack honor?

[grmorton]

So now let's "move on" - including your answer to Glenn's post.

Shalom,
George

That will happen when a certain deep location freezes over in July.

I did think I would make a note of my changed avatar here. Two days ago I went deep sea fishing and caught a Red Snapper which was only 2 lbs underneath the record for the State of Texas. It was massive.

George will know why I made this comment.

[rogero]

That will happen when a certain deep location freezes over in July.

I did think I would make a note of my changed avatar here. Two days ago I went deep sea fishing and caught a Red Snapper which was only 2 lbs underneath the record for the State of Texas. It was massive.

George will know why I made this comment.


Good fishin', Glennn!

Be careful, though, you might be accused by a particular person on TWeb of using Photoshop to have doctored that picture as well. :blush:

[grmorton]

Good fishin', Glennn!

Be careful, though, you might be accused by a particular person on TWeb of using Photoshop to have doctored that picture as well. :blush:

I got about 25 witnesses. Course they might be said to be part of the grand conspiracy as well. When one decides to distrust one person, one can easily extend that to everyone. That is a sad way of doing business. This kind of paranoiac-like behavior is illustrated by Steidl's quotation:

"In fact, they will never give it up, even if it means compromising their reason or even their professional integrity, for to admit creation is to admit the existence of the God of the Bible. This is exactly what the world system will not do."

When one distrusts anyone with a different view as much as this illustrates, one will never be correctible and they will never change their mind or listen to anything from a person in that group. It is sad that there are some creationists who so distrust that they have trapped themselves in a black hole of ignorance from which they will never escape.

I believe in God, I believe in evolution. I have just disproven the above nonsense.

[brett]

That will happen when a certain deep location freezes over in July.

I did think I would make a note of my changed avatar here. Two days ago I went deep sea fishing and caught a Red Snapper which was only 2 lbs underneath the record for the State of Texas. It was massive.

George will know why I made this comment.

Sorry Mort, I just don't read long posts. Don't have the time! If you want to condense it I’d be willing to look at it. From just a cursory glance, though, I noticed some technical (and even some not so technical, but nevertheless) scientific arguments which I’m not qualified to answer. Why you would want to argue science with a non scientists is telling, though. It would be kind of like you trying to argue with Jezz about information theories. :poke: The fact that you (and George, ironically) are trying to shift the discussion proves to me, you’re not confident about the current subject.

At any rate, I have a busy Saturday. I’ll be back after the weekend to respond to other replies about the harmony of Gen. 1 & 2.

[Starkman]

My point is that there isn't an issue of contradiction between Genesis 1 & 2 in the Ancient Near East thinking. Further, Brett, I never said there was a contradiction (please read my post closely), and I don't think anybody would be so stupid as to create a contradiction so close together in the text. I mean, would any of us? Let's not make the ANE peoples out to be a bunch of idiots.

In view of ANE thinking, the surrounding literature of the time and the theological purpose Genesis 1 & 2 has as an initiation into the biblical perspective for the account, it's not an issue of looking for contradiction. There is no need to reconcile anything, because the author's point (based on the three items above) has nothing to do with trying to convey science...as if the author was thinking, "Ok, when I write the account of God's creative work of the heavens and the earth, it will be the scientific explanation and without any contradictions"). Rather, there is the theological framework being developed in these two chapters, and no ANE mind would be sitting around reading and analyizing it with western thinking: "Hmm...contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2! Oh, and how could the sun not have been created before light appears? And...well, my goodness; this account is so inaccurate when compared with current geological and archeological information..." They didn't think like this, and we are at fault as interpreters when we bring our western thinking into an arena of interpretation where it does not belong. We need to first understand what the ANE thinking of the time was and work within that hermeneutical framework.

As to the two chapters themselves, the tone of chapter 2:1-3 cannot help but be seen as a statement of completion regarding the creation as it was just given: Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done. (NIV) Surely, therefore, when one reads this and then moves onto verse 4--if we have our ANE thinking interpretive caps on--the reader can figure out that Genesis 2:4 is obviously not meant to come right in and stupidly contradict the first chapter (there weren't even chapter divisions in the originals; the account was to be read as a whole).

The writer of these two chapters was not giving us a blow-by-blow of scientific and chronological information--he wasn't even thinking about this--so that the western minds could later come along and either note the whole record is irreconcilable or absolutely without contradiction. If one wants to treat the text in this manner, one does so by disrespecting a much earlier culture and thinking process, that is in so many ways different than ours.

Until I discovered that I didn't know diddly squat about ANE thinking and literature, I used to hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2 (note: the interpretation; not the narrative format itself, which is clearly literal for communication purposes). My previous way of approaching Genesis did what it does for many; instigates the problems we are talking about here. However, since I have learned a few things about ANE literature and genre, I've discovered that I neither have to be afraid of the Ancient's thinking, and means of communicating this thinking, nor do I have to concern myself with worrying about compromising the biblical theological message conveyed in Genesis. The theology is far more clear and consistent than is the western mind's approach to interpreting an ancient text. That's quite liberating, if you ask me. (And I'm only a novice in this ANE thing!)

For ANE thinking,

Starkman

[A Beautiful Truth]

I don't see that Gen 2:4 to 7 contain the notion that plants and animals came after man. This is merely a skipping summary, with the emphasis on man. Notice the contrast: no plants, no animals, no men -- then suddenly man.

The ancient Hebrew loved dramatic contrast like that. I simply see no warrant to think these verses are intented to teach that animals and plants came after the creation of man.


But, it is the plain, straightforward reading of the text. Man, then animals. You may not say this is in harmony with Gen one, unless you appeal to a different frame of reference.

[grmorton]

Sorry Mort, I just don't read long posts. Don't have the time! If you want to condense it I’d be willing to look at it. From just a cursory glance, though, I noticed some technical (and even some not so technical, but nevertheless) scientific arguments which I’m not qualified to answer. Why you would want to argue science with a non scientists is telling, though. It would be kind of like you trying to argue with Jezz about information theories. :poke: The fact that you (and George, ironically) are trying to shift the discussion proves to me, you’re not confident about the current subject.

At any rate, I have a busy Saturday. I’ll be back after the weekend to respond to other replies about the harmony of Gen. 1 & 2.


As I suspected. you are without honor. If you aren't qualified to answer that data, then you are not qualified to claim that the radiometric dating is the only reason to believe in an old earth. You can't have it both ways, my friend.

Yeah, yeah, all yecs and yec leaders are too busy to answer problems for their views. Fits right in with past patterns.

[George Murphy]

Sorry Mort, I just don't read long posts. Don't have the time! If you want to condense it I’d be willing to look at it. From just a cursory glance, though, I noticed some technical (and even some not so technical, but nevertheless) scientific arguments which I’m not qualified to answer. Why you would want to argue science with a non scientists is telling, though. It would be kind of like you trying to argue with Jezz about information theories. :poke: The fact that you (and George, ironically) are trying to shift the discussion proves to me, you’re not confident about the current subject.

At any rate, I have a busy Saturday. I’ll be back after the weekend to respond to other replies about the harmony of Gen. 1 & 2.Glenn has already answered this as it relates to him. I have to add that your claim that I am "trying to shift the discussion" is a simple falsehood. In my posts 14 and 38 I presented reasons why your argument fails and you have paid no attention to either.

I say this not because (as you seem to imagine) my feelings are hurt because I'm ignored or because I think I've made any original discovery, but because I think it's important for other to realize the shifty way you operate. When scientific or theological arguments are presented to show the inadequacy of your standard YEC arguments you either ignore them or claim to be too busy to answer them. Then a few days later, when things have cooled down, you come back & trot out the same old ideas as if they had never been challenged.

At least we've learned one thing from your response to Glenn: You've admitted that you're not competent to debate scientific issues. So from now on keep quiet about them.

Shalom,
George

[brett]

Ok, I’m back!.... in spite of popular demand!

Boy a lot of confusion can accumulate in just a couple of days. I’ve gone back to review some of the earlier posts to refresh myself on your (plural) various positions. There’s a lot to do here, but I’ll answer as much as I can.


As I pointed out on another thread ("Deep Theistic Interpretation" in the Biblical Languages 301 forum), the NIV's attempt to keep the order of creation of living things in Gen.2 open to historical harmonization with the oprder of Gen.1 just doesn't work. While they use the past perfect ("had planted") in 2:8, in 2:9 they still have a simple past ("made all kinds of trees grow"), the natural meaning of which is that the creation of trees foolowed that of the man.

This was almost painful to read again. How can you possibly equate the “planting” of plants with the “creation” of plants?


& there is a larger point. Brett & others strain to argue that the readings of NIV are acceptable, & thus the order "could" be that of Gen.1. But one can also argue that the readings of most other versions (KJV, RSV, &c) are acceptable, & thus Gen.1 & 2 shouldn't be read as historical narrative, & thus that there's a possibility of understanding them in ways that don't conflict with the great mass of scientific evidence that the world & living things didn't come into being recently in 6 days.

So if you look at either the trees or the forest, the attempt to defend a YEC viewpoint comes up empty.

All that matters is the original Hebrew. If you study languages at all you’ll know some things are simply not translatable. The point is the hebrew in Gen. 1 leaves he sequence of the events open. What I’m trying to show is that this argument of a contradiction between Gen. 1 and 2 is a non issue. If you want to argue there’s a contradiction between recent scientific theories and the original hebrew grammar of Gen. 1 and 2 (read as an historical narrative) then fine! But recent scientific theories aren’t inspired.


Of course context is important. But 2 other matters also must be given attention.

1) One also has to give full respect to the different points of view, theological emphases, styles &c of different writers & different texts. If you read, e.g., Matthew & Luke-Acts with the a priori assumption that they're essentially saying the same things in the same ways then you flatten out both texts and miss their distinctive theological emphases.

Who is assuming that Gen. 1 & 2 are essentially saying the same thing? What I’ve made clear is they don’t contradict. Gen. 2 is focusing on the Garden of Eden and the creation of the woman. Gen. 1 is focusing on the creation of the entire Heavens, Earth and everything in them.


2) It simply cannot be assumed that everything in the Bible is to be read as historical narrative. While historical harmonization is appropriate and necessary for some texts, it may badly distort other texts to force them into the mold of historical narrative. You don't read a love letter in the same way you read one from your lawyer.

No, but if my wife writes a love letter to me and says she’s writing from grandma’s house in the midwest in the spring, and then I later find out she was in Hawaii partying with friends, should that have been considered a contradiction or just a different writing style? (no, this didn’t happen. it’s just an illustration. my wife takes me with her whenever she goes out to party!)


Illustration: I & II Chronicles covers pretty much the same ground as II Samuel & I & II Kings. Both of them have the appearance of historical narrative. But a careful read quickly notices important differences. Chronicles leaves out almost all the bad stuff about the kings of Judah (David's adultery & murder, Solomon's idolatry &c). The numbers in Chronicles
(sizes of armies, wealth) are exaggerated with respect to Samuel-Kings, sometimes to the extent of seeming completely unrealistic. There are other differences.

What's going on? Well, Samuel-Kings is pretty much historical narrative, though with some theological interpretation. Chronicles was written later & uses the history of Judah to draw a picture of the Messianic kingdom. Of course David doesn't commit adultery or Solomon idolatry there because the Messiah won't do those things! Of course there's fabulous wealth because that will be the way it is in the Kingdom of God!

Now you'll see that I have in fact "harmonized" these texts - but at a theological level. Harmonization of them as historical accounts however - e.g., figuring out some scenario by which David paid both 50 shekels of silver (II Sam.24:24) & 600 shekels of gold (I Chron.21:25) for the site of the Temple - is not only a waste of time but ignores what the writer of Chronicles was doing.

Similar things can be said about Gen.1 & 2 but it's helpful to consider 1st an example that's free from the heat of debates about creation & evolution. If you don't get it with the Kings-Chronicles example then there's no point in discussing Genesis.

Oh I get what you’re doing, I just think it’s sad. The truth is you really don’t believe the Bible. The type of methods you’re using to justify apparent discrepancies could be used with any historical religious book. So while you think you’re somehow proving the Bible to be true, you’re also proving every other religious book on earth to be true. Just change the interpretation framework when a problem pops up. Atheists laugh at this kind of tortured reasoning. Now the part about Chronicles and Kings focusing on different matters is fine. But to dismiss apparent discrepancies using “theological interpretations” is quite shallow, in my view.


The claim that "nobody has touched it" is false, My post 14 (apologies for calling it 15 earlier - 15 is your post in which you quoted my 14 in full but said nothing about its arguments) pointed out it's weaknesses.

No, it’s not false! Your post (14) did not interact with any of my arguments in post 7. You ignored my points and went on to discuss the “planting” (which you’ve equated with “creating”) of the Garden. I never referred to that portion because I had no idea anyone would confuse these two obviously different terms. But if you call that a response, then you should have had no problem with mine.


I.e., contrary to the way you say you're going to proceed, you're not simply reading the text as it stands. You're asking what seems most reasonable to you rather than what the author of the text said.

Ah the irony! And this from someone who will change his interpretation with every new passing scientific theory!


Nobody has ever said that Gen.2 couldn't be read in the way you suggest. The question is rather whether it seems at all like a natural way to read the text.

Yes, it’s quite natural, and any other way would be quite unnatural (considering the context of chapter 1).


The likelihood that it isn't is strengthed when one realizes other indications that Gen.1 & Gen.2 are different accounts. The differences in the whole atmospheres of the stories, the ways in which God's creative work is understood, linguistic usage & the different (complementary, not contradictory) ways in which relations between men & women are described should also be noted. (I have pointed out the 1st of these 3 differences earlier.)

Yes, you’ve made your case. It’s a bad one! You’ve admitted a literal reading that doesn’t contradict is possible, yet refuse to accept it because you see another possible reading that would be contradictory (when read literally). I’m tempted to give you pearls if this gets any worse.


My point is that there isn't an issue of contradiction between Genesis 1 & 2 in the Ancient Near East thinking. Further, Brett, I never said there was a contradiction (please read my post closely), and I don't think anybody would be so stupid as to create a contradiction so close together in the text. I mean, would any of us? Let's not make the ANE peoples out to be a bunch of idiots.

Yes I know that’s what you meant. But you have to understand even people on your side such as George and Glen are agreeing with me that these passages can be taken literally without contradiction. You and Charlene seem to be the only hold-outs.


In view of ANE thinking, the surrounding literature of the time and the theological purpose Genesis 1 & 2 has as an initiation into the biblical perspective for the account, it's not an issue of looking for contradiction. There is no need to reconcile anything, because the author's point (based on the three items above) has nothing to do with trying to convey science...

Science is not the issue. Charlene says there’s a contradiction if Gen. 1 and 2 are read as historical narratives. Hebrew experts have totally refuted this. Now if you want to deny a literal Genesis for other reasons have at it. But if this is your main reason you really need to rethink the issue. There is no contradiction. It’s a myth!


as if the author was thinking, "Ok, when I write the account of God's creative work of the heavens and the earth, it will be the scientific explanation and without any contradictions"). Rather, there is the theological framework being developed in these two chapters, and no ANE mind would be sitting around reading and analyizing it with western thinking: "Hmm...contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2! Oh, and how could the sun not have been created before light appears?

(assuming I understand what you mean by “ANE”) You’re right? They would never ask such questions. They would view it as a miracle, not a naturalistic event covering long periods of time as most of you do. The problem is, you don’t view it as a miracle.


And...well, my goodness; this account is so inaccurate when compared with current geological and archeological information..." They didn't think like this, and we are at fault as interpreters when we bring our western thinking into an arena of interpretation where it does not belong. We need to first understand what the ANE thinking of the time was and work within that hermeneutical framework.

They believed creation was an act of God. It was a miracle! This is a concept that many seem to struggle with today. I can understand the Atheists struggle as they don’t believe in miracles (in the order of the resurrection, the water changing to wine, etc.). But why some christians are confused is beyond me.



As to the two chapters themselves, the tone of chapter 2:1-3 cannot help but be seen as a statement of completion regarding the creation as it was just given: Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done. (NIV) Surely, therefore, when one reads this and then moves onto verse 4--if we have our ANE thinking interpretive caps on--the reader can figure out that Genesis 2:4 is obviously not meant to come right in and stupidly contradict the first chapter (there weren't even chapter divisions in the originals; the account was to be read as a whole).

Actually your misunderstandings here are quite extensive. Even your fellow TEs aren’t saying what you are here. Gen. 2 is a restatement of the creation with a different focus and perspective. It was probably written by a completely different author (both inspired by God of course, and then later compiled by Moses). But both chapters are describing the same event, yet focusing on different details.


The writer of these two chapters was not giving us a blow-by-blow of scientific and chronological information--he wasn't even thinking about this--so that the western minds could later come along and either note the whole record is irreconcilable or absolutely without contradiction. If one wants to treat the text in this manner, one does so by disrespecting a much earlier culture and thinking process, that is in so many ways different than ours.

Nevertheless, he (they) still managed to write these two chapters without a single contradiction (even when read as an historical narrative). Glen and George have already admitted this. Why are you still holding out?


Until I discovered that I didn't know diddly squat about ANE thinking and literature, I used to hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2 (note: the interpretation; not the narrative format itself, which is clearly literal for communication purposes). My previous way of approaching Genesis did what it does for many; instigates the problems we are talking about here. However, since I have learned a few things about ANE literature and genre, I've discovered that I neither have to be afraid of the Ancient's thinking, and means of communicating this thinking, nor do I have to concern myself with worrying about compromising the biblical theological message conveyed in Genesis. The theology is far more clear and consistent than is the western mind's approach to interpreting an ancient text. That's quite liberating, if you ask me. (And I'm only a novice in this ANE thing!),

Sounds like an excuse to me. But if what you’re saying is true, why did they bother harmonizing Gen. 1 & 2? Why didn’t they just put blatant contradictions in there for everyone to see?


But, it is the plain, straightforward reading of the text. Man, then animals. You may not say this is in harmony with Gen one, unless you appeal to a different frame of reference.

That’s a powerful argument Charleen. How come you haven’t tried this one? “I’m right, your wrong, neener neener neeeeeenr!”


As I suspected. you are without honor. If you aren't qualified to answer that data, then you are not qualified to claim that the radiometric dating is the only reason to believe in an old earth. You can't have it both ways, my friend.

Yeah, yeah, all yecs and yec leaders are too busy to answer problems for their views. Fits right in with past patterns.

Ah yes, the type of reply we’ve all learned to expect from Glen. So I have no honor because I admit I am not qualified to comment on technical scientific matters? Glen still thinks arguments are won by talking over the head of your opponent.


Glen has already answered this as it relates to him.

Yes and what a splendid job he did.


I have to add that your claim that I am "trying to shift the discussion" is a simple falsehood. In my posts 14 and 38 I presented reasons why your argument fails and you have paid no attention to either.

This is just a fib George. Have you not been urging me to respond to Glen’s post?


I say this not because (as you seem to imagine) my feelings are hurt because I'm ignored or because I think I've made any original discovery, but because I think it's important for other to realize the shifty way you operate. When scientific or theological arguments are presented to show the inadequacy of your standard YEC arguments you either ignore them or claim to be too busy to answer them. Then a few days later, when things have cooled down, you come back & trot out the same old ideas as if they had never been challenged.

Again, why do you insist on arguing science with a non scientist?


At least we've learned one thing from your response to Glen: You've admitted that you're not competent to debate scientific issues. So from now on keep quiet about them.

Oh I love it! You see! This is exactly what you guys would have said, had I commented on your scientific challenges. :lol: Thanks George, you saved me the trouble of pointing out the obvious. Glen’s probably a little ticked at you right now. :bonk:

You know, if you guys really want to coordinate an effective attack, you may want to at least consult with each other first. Just some free advise.

Just a heads up. Because I'm responding to so many of you, I'll most likely be ignoring any long posts. So if you really get on a roll, don't be disappointed when I don't respond. Try instead to take it one issue at a time.

[grmorton]

Ah yes, the type of reply we’ve all learned to expect from Glen. So I have no honor because I admit I am not qualified to comment on technical scientific matters? Glen still thinks arguments are won by talking over the head of your opponent.

No you have little honor because you claim certain things, then when challenged you chicken out and claim that you aren't qualified. If you had honor you wouldn't make silly claims about things you are unqualified (be personal admission) to speak on.


Again, why do you insist on arguing science with a non scientist?

I hesitate to answer for my friend George, but in my case it is because that non-scientist keeps making completely stupid statements about science, expecting people to take him seriously, until such a point as he is challenged and he acknowledges that he has no knowledge, but then claims not to understand why people think he has no honor when he uses tactics like this

[George Murphy]

This was almost painful to read again. How can you possibly equate the “planting” of plants with the “creation” of plants?I didn't.. You did. (Though you probably don't understand your own argument.) The NIV reads (my emphasis added):

"Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden: and there he put the man he had formed. And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground ..."[/quote]The NIV's past perfect, upon which you depend to show that plants were created before the man, is used to describe the planting. It is no more unreasonable to see this as the creation of plants than it is to see the earth's "bringing forth" of them in as such in Gen.1. Just to assume that the trees had been created before that is to beg the question.

But my point really was that God's making "all kinds of trees to grow" does sound more like the creation of plants & it follows the placing of the man in the garden. So the NIV's translation doesn't do the job you want it to.

Your next statement (omitted here) tries to give the impression that you know something about the Hebrew language but you've shown no sign of that: All you do is appeal to the NIV as your expert translation. ..........................

Oh I get what you’re doing, I just think it’s sad. The truth is you really don’t believe the Bible.You have no justification at all for this statement. That you apparently don't get my point about Kings & Chronicles is excusable. But in your willingness to put the worst construction on what I said you are in clear violation of the commandment not to bear false witness. Unless a sincere apology is given I will have nothing more to do with you and I encourage others who have some respect for honest debate to deal with you in the same way.

Shalom,
George

[brett]

No you have little honor because you claim certain things, then when challenged you chicken out and claim that you aren't qualified. If you had honor you wouldn't make silly claims about things you are unqualified (be personal admission) to speak on.

I see, so if a greek scholar wants to argue with me about language, and I decline, it means I’m chicken. Nice logic Glen.


I hesitate to answer for my friend George, but in my case it is because that non-scientist keeps making completely stupid statements about science, expecting people to take him seriously, until such a point as he is challenged and he acknowledges that he has no knowledge, but then claims not to understand why people think he has no honor when he uses tactics like this

Ok bluff called. Name the stupid scientific claim I made.

[grmorton]

I see, so if a greek scholar wants to argue with me about language, and I decline, it means I’m chicken. Nice logic Glen.

Yeah, if you have claimed that tritos means 'four'.



Ok bluff called. Name the stupid scientific claim I made.

This one:


In other words, even if Gen. 1 and 2 really are in harmony, it doesn't matter. Infallible radiometric dating can’t ever be doubted. Therefore we must go back and reinterpret the Bible to make it fit.

If you aren't qualified to answer geological questions, you really aren't qualified to raise geological objections. When we pointed out to you that it wasn't just radiometric dating that indicated an old earth you wrote:

Sorry Mort, I just don't read long posts. Don't have the time! If you want to condense it I’d be willing to look at it. From just a cursory glance, though, I noticed some technical (and even some not so technical, but nevertheless) scientific arguments which I’m not qualified to answer. Why you would want to argue science with a non scientists is telling, though.

Why would a non-scientist, who acknowledges his inability to discuss such things think he has a leg to stand on when questioning radiometric dating is beyond me. It is stupid to do that and shows an arrogance beyond belief. IT also shows a slipperiness that Clinton would be proud of.

[brett]

This one:

In other words, even if Gen. 1 and 2 really are in harmony, it doesn't matter. Infallible radiometric dating can’t ever be doubted. Therefore we must go back and reinterpret the Bible to make it fit.

If you aren't qualified to answer geological questions, you really aren't qualified to raise geological objections. When we pointed out to you that it wasn't just radiometric dating that indicated an old earth you wrote:

Oh stop! The fact that some choose to believe modern dating methods over a literal interpretation of Genesis is common knowledge. And I never said it was the only reason. There's nothing scientific about that statement at all. You're letting your emotions get the best of you Glen. Do you have any idea how silly you sound?


Why would a non-scientist, who acknowledges his inability to discuss such things think he has a leg to stand on when questioning radiometric dating is beyond me. It is stupid to do that and shows an arrogance beyond belief. IT also shows a slipperiness that Clinton would be proud of.

Ooooo, now that hurts! But as long as you don’t compare me to Kerry I can deal with it. :lol:

[grmorton]

Oh stop! The fact that some choose to believe modern dating methods over a literal interpretation of Genesis is common knowledge.

I consider my interpretation of Genesis quite literal but it gets out of the YEC head-in-the-sand approach which requires all observational data to be false. My literalistic interpretation doesn't contradict science.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Brett,

I do not believe there is a contradiction between Gen. one and Gen. two. You don't, either because you say the focus is different.

Let me ask once more because your last answer was not very clear in this regard. What is the order of man and animals?

Gen. one has animals first, then man. Gen. two has man first, then animals. There is no way of getting around the difference in the order. If you say the focus is just different in Gen. two, then you have agreed with me this whole time, and I don't understand your opposition.

[brett]

Brett,

I do not believe there is a contradiction between Gen. one and Gen. two. You don't, either because you say the focus is different.

Let me ask once more because your last answer was not very clear in this regard. What is the order of man and animals?

Gen. one has animals first, then man. Gen. two has man first, then animals. There is no way of getting around the difference in the order. If you say the focus is just different in Gen. two, then you have agreed with me this whole time, and I don't understand your opposition.

No, you’ve misunderstood the whole debate. In Gen. 1 you have the sequential order of: Plants, land animals, man. In Gen. 2 you do not have a sequential order specified.

I think the latter is where you’re getting confused. You believe an oder is implied, but the fact is, it is not. According to the hebrew experts, the words used in the verses in question are in a form that’s open (for lack of a better way of expressing it). Apparently, in english, we don’t have the same forms and therefore, some translating difficulties come up. Many of the translations that make the texts seem contradictory (with Gen. 1) are what we call word for word translations such as the NASB, KJV, NKJV, etc. The translators in these really try to stay away from interpreting and just attempt to translate words as closely as possible. The NIV I’ve heard described as a thought for thought translation. The philosophy here was a little different. Instead of a word for word approach, they try to consider entire sentences and thoughts and then restate them in english. As a result, the NIV is a much more fluent translation. The down side, of course, is they sometimes do some interpreting that may be a little off. The down side of the other translations is that sometimes a word for word translation is not possible and a different meaning in english may result. That I think is the case here, and why this problem has come up.

But aside from that, all you really need to understand is the hebrew in Gen. 2 leaves the sequence open and it’s the readers responsibility to determine the sequence from context. This is exactly what the NIV translators did and why their translation comes out a little different. Notice the contrast:

NASB
18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

NIV
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

Notice the difference in the choice of words and the chapter break. In the NAS, the break is in 18 and in the NIV it’s in 19.

But again, don’t look at this as the NASB verses the NIV. That’s not the point. The point is, in the original hebrew the author left the sequence open.

And my overarching point is this. You can argue as to whether or not the Genesis creation story is to be read as a historical narrative or merely a figurative story. But you can’t use an ostensible contradiction between 1 & 2 to justify your position, because it’s just not there.

[A Beautiful Truth]

NASB
18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

NIV
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

Notice the difference in the choice of words and the chapter break. In the NAS, the break is in 18 and in the NIV it’s in 19.



That's interesting, Brett, but I'll still take the wording to say that animals were created after man, even in the NIV, because the NIV keeps some key wording: "I WILL MAKE"... "Will make" means it has not happened yet. So, when man was made, animals were not yet made, according to Gen. 2, and man was alone (sort of the whole reason given in chapter two for animals, wouldn't you say?). That is the plain, straigtforward, unaltered reading of the text, Brett.

~Charleen

[A Beautiful Truth]

Atheists laugh at this kind of tortured reasoning.

And do you really care why atheists laugh at such things? The YEC group, as a whole, usually does not care what makes atheists laugh, so I thought it ironic you would bring it up to George.

But not to get us off topic...

~Charleen

[Starkman]

Brett,

You keep refering to the "Hebrew experts."
Who are they?

Thanks,

Starkman

[Abigail]

That's interesting, Brett, but I'll still take the wording to say that animals were created after man, even in the NIV, because the NIV keeps some key wording: "I WILL MAKE"... "Will make" means it has not happened yet. So, when man was made, animals were not yet made, according to Gen. 2. That is the plain, straigtforward, unaltered reading of the text, Brett.

~Charleen
Charleen, God hadnt made Eve yet. In His wisdom He knew that Adam would not find a suitable helper amongst the animals and so the 'I will make' just shows His foreknowledge, but He let Adam name the (already made)animals and see for himself if any of the animals were suitable for him. Perhaps this verse sheds some light on Romans 1:20 and what Paul is saying ie through the created physical things, we see God's attributes ie by observing the animals Adam could see that none of them could converse and be a companion to him. God had made Adam in His image capable of communion. Adam knew what He needed just as we all know when we or others are doing things that are not pleasing to God.

[Etcetera]

Brett:

Greetings in the name.

If the author wanted to communicate the animals were created right then and there, to be auditioned as helpmates for Adam, then what was the naming thing all about? What does naming have to do with match making?

The answer, of course, is that naming the animals has everything to do with the finding of a mate for Adam.

In the ANE, a name is not just an identifier to keep siblings straight. It is seen as the embodiment either of what that person is or represents or of the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the person doing the naming. Names were a very big deal in the Old Testament (and in the New, for that matter).

The connection between naming and finding a mate is made explicit in Genesis 2.20:

The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the heavens, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper meet for him.

It is the name given to each animal that would let God know (who is waiting to see what he would call them in 2.19; anthropomorphism in action) that none of them was suitable as a mate for Adam. Apparently he called none of them mate, or suitable-for-me, or so forth. None was suitable as a mate, because Adam gave none of them a name leading to that conclusion. So God gives him a mate from his own flesh.

As for 2.19-20 being a flashback, yes, the Hebrew appears to allow that.

You brought up the NIV translation as witness for this reading:

I'm still laughing about how stubbornly you guys believe there is a contradiction, even though the hebrew experts and the NIV translators are telling you otherwise. I’ve still not heard anyone refute the NIV’s translation as being invalid.

I will not presume to call the NIV translation invalid at this point (that is, the semantic range allows for the rendering, I believe), but would like to point out two translations that are, in my judgment, of infinitely greater value to students of the text than any modern translation. I refer to the Septuagint and the Vulgate. Genesis 2.19a:

Και επλασεν ο θεος ετι εκ της γης....

And God further created out of the earth....

Formavit igitur dominus deus de humo....

The Lord God then formed from the earth....

Both of these translations of the original Hebrew appear to understand Genesis 2.19-20 as part of the sequence of events of 2.18-25, not as a flashback to some time beforehand. The ancient translations ought to at least be factored into the equation.

In him.

Etcetera.

[brett]

That's interesting, Brett, but I'll still take the wording to say that animals were created after man, even in the NIV, because the NIV keeps some key wording: "I WILL MAKE"... "Will make" means it has not happened yet. So, when man was made, animals were not yet made, according to Gen. 2, and man was alone (sort of the whole reason given in chapter two for animals, wouldn't you say?). That is the plain, straigtforward, unaltered reading of the text, Brett.

That’s fine you can take it however you want. You’ve never been one to let facts make too much of an impact. If the experts say there is no sequence specified and you say, well, “Brett, but I'll still take the wording to say that animals were created after man”, hey, what can I say? You can believe what you want. I just want people to see there’s no logic behind it.

BTW, if I’m not mistaken, even Ross disagrees with you on this one.

[brett]

Brett,

You keep refering to the "Hebrew experts."
Who are they?

Thanks,

Starkman

Sarfati quotes Hebrew grammarians Waltke & O'Connor. He also cites Keil and Delitzsch.

[A Beautiful Truth]

That’s fine you can take it however you want. You’ve never been one to let facts make too much of an impact. If the experts say there is no sequence specified and you say, well, “Brett, but I'll still take the wording to say that animals were created after man”, hey, what can I say? You can believe what you want. I just want people to see there’s no logic behind it.

BTW, if I’m not mistaken, even Ross disagrees with you on this one.

The wording of chapter two does put animals and Eve after Adam. I like what Etcetera wrote above.

Making animals after Adam was created "alone", and having him name those animals that were brought to him, showed to Adam something very important--that there was still something lacking as far as his companionship.

You miss the beauty of the meaning of this text when you try to force fit a concordance with chapter one.

If you say chapter two is making a literal statment about the order of creation--you have missed the point. You wanting it to be so is missing the purpose of the account, entirely.

[brett]

The answer, of course, is that naming the animals has everything to do with the finding of a mate for Adam.

In the ANE, a name is not just an identifier to keep siblings straight. It is seen as the embodiment either of what that person is or represents or of the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the person doing the naming. Names were a very big deal in the Old Testament (and in the New, for that matter).

The connection between naming and finding a mate is made explicit in Genesis 2.20:

It is the name given to each animal that would let God know (who is waiting to see what he would call them in 2.19; anthropomorphism in action) that none of them was suitable as a mate for Adam. Apparently he called none of them mate, or suitable-for-me, or so forth. None was suitable as a mate, because Adam gave none of them a name leading to that conclusion. So God gives him a mate from his own flesh.

This is a good point, Etcetera. You may have swayed me on this one.


As for 2.19-20 being a flashback, yes, the Hebrew appears to allow that.

We are definitely in agreement here and as I will explain, nothing else really matters.


You brought up the NIV translation as witness for this reading:

Well actually, I'm trying not to make it a NIV vs. NASB, etc., issue. I’m trying to point, rather, to what the experts say about the original text.


I will not presume to call the NIV translation invalid at this point (that is, the semantic range allows for the rendering, I believe), but would like to point out two translations that are, in my judgment, of infinitely greater value to students of the text than any modern translation. I refer to the Septuagint and the Vulgate. Genesis 2.19a:

Both of these translations of the original Hebrew appear to understand Genesis 2.19-20 as part of the sequence of events of 2.18-25, not as a flashback to some time beforehand. The ancient translations ought to at least be factored into the equation.

Actually I don't think translations should factor in at all. All that should matter is the original hebrew. As you said before, a flashback rendering is legitimate in the original hebrew. No one is disputing this that I know of (even the translators of these other texts). Therefore, using translations to allege a contradiction between Gen. 1 and 2 is fallacious reasoning. That’s my point.

[brett]

If you say chapter two is making a literal statment about the order of creation--you have missed the point.

This statement shows you still don’t understand the debate. There is no chronological order specified in chapter 2, whether you read it literally or not. This is what I've been saying. And if you disagree, you are disagreeing with the hebrew grammarians, not with me. Does this make sense?

[brett]

Charleen, God hadnt made Eve yet. In His wisdom He knew that Adam would not find a suitable helper amongst the animals and so the 'I will make' just shows His foreknowledge, but He let Adam name the (already made)animals and see for himself if any of the animals were suitable for him. Perhaps this verse sheds some light on Romans 1:20 and what Paul is saying ie through the created physical things, we see God's attributes ie by observing the animals Adam could see that none of them could converse and be a companion to him. God had made Adam in His image capable of communion. Adam knew what He needed just as we all know when we or others are doing things that are not pleasing to God.

These are important points, Abigail. It’s important to understand “I will make” is referring to the future Eve. Therefore, if you have God immediately making animals after that statement, it implies they were intended by God to be Adam’s suitable helpmate. Whereas if you understand His reference to them as a glance backward no such implication can be inferred.

[Augustine2004]

Event 1
Event 2
Event 3
Event 4

This is the 'actual' sequence of events (illustration).

Suppose I said: 'Events 1, 2, 3, 4 have not happened yet. Then Event 3 happened.'

On that basis of the statement that I just said, alone, Did Events 1 & 2 happen AFTER Event 3? Did Event 4 happen BEFORE 3? If you say yes and yes, please explain why.

[A Beautiful Truth]

These are important points, Abigail. It’s important to understand “I will make” is referring to the future Eve. Therefore, if you have God immediately making animals after that statement, it implies they were intended by God to be Adam’s suitable helpmate. Whereas if you understand His reference to them as a glance backward no such implication can be inferred.

I like the point Etcetera made about this:

The answer, of course, is that naming the animals has everything to do with the finding of a mate for Adam.

In the ANE, a name is not just an identifier to keep siblings straight. It is seen as the embodiment either of what that person is or represents or of the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the person doing the naming. Names were a very big deal in the Old Testament (and in the New, for that matter).

The connection between naming and finding a mate is made explicit in Genesis 2.20:

It is the name given to each animal that would let God know (who is waiting to see what he would call them in 2.19; anthropomorphism in action) that none of them was suitable as a mate for Adam. Apparently he called none of them mate, or suitable-for-me, or so forth. None was suitable as a mate, because Adam gave none of them a name leading to that conclusion. So God gives him a mate from his own flesh...

...Both of these translations of the original Hebrew appear to understand Genesis 2.19-20 as part of the sequence of events of 2.18-25, not as a flashback to some time beforehand. The ancient translations ought to at least be factored into the equation.

Bold mine. Genesis chap. 2 gives an order here. Man was alone, God made animals, animals were not suitable, God made Eve. If this sequence is to be taken literal, you have a contradiction with Gen. one. You are saying that the Bible is not really saying that God made animals from the dust and brought them to the man who was at that time alone.

If the text said what you are pushing, the sequence would look more like this:

vs. 19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

vs. 20 And man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.

vs.18 Then the Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

vs.21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs...

But the order is inspired as it is, Brett, not as we try to make it fit with our expectations.

The text continues to be abused by those who demand of it what was never intended. We miss so much when we make it fit our interpretation.

[Abigail]

The text continues to be abused by those who demand of it what was never intended. We miss so much when we make it fit our interpretation.
Oi, speak for yourself Charleen.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Oi, speak for yourself Charleen.

Perhaps you will answer Etcetera's post #61 and add something useful to the discussion.

[Abigail]

Perhaps you will answer Etcetera's post #61 and add something useful to the discussion.
Charleen, could you please explain what you mean by your post. Did you even bother to read my post #60 - the one I specifically addressed to you. You say you want to have open discussion with YEC's and yet make these scathing comments like the one I quoted of you earlier...what purpose did your comment serve other than to cause animosity.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Charleen, could you please explain what you mean by your post. Did you even bother to read my post #60 - the one I specifically addressed to you.

Yes, I read it and Etcetera's post #61, which came right after yours, answered it well. Perhaps I should have said as much before.

You say you want to have open discussion with YEC's and yet make these scathing comments like the one I quoted of you earlier...what purpose did your comment serve other than to cause animosity.

You are very sensitive. This is what I said: "The text continues to be abused by those who demand of it what was never intended. We miss so much when we make it fit our interpretation."

This is not limited to YEC's, by any means.

And your own comment "Oi, speak for yourself, Charleen" was not meant to be as "scathing" as what you perceived mine to be?

[Abigail]

Yes, I read it and Etcetera's post #61, which came right after yours, answered it well. Your opinion
You are very sensitive. This is what I said: "The text continues to be abused by those who demand of it what was never intended. We miss so much when we make it fit our interpretation."

This is not limited to YEC's, by any means.No I agree it is by no means limited to YEC's, and as long as that has been acknowledged by you then I am happy.

[Augustine2004]

Genesis chap. 2 gives an order here. Man was alone, God made animals, animals were not suitable, God made Eve. If this sequence is to be taken literal, you have a contradiction with Gen. one.That is true. But, why should we 'take [the] sequence literal'?

I've said the following before (I think?) -- the ancient Hebrews did not arrange topics in a chronological manner as often as we do, nor take them to be.
You are saying that the Bible is not really saying that God made animals from the dust and brought them to the man who was at that time alone.Alone in the sense of having no woman.

If the text said what you are pushing, the sequence would look more like this:

vs. 19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

vs. 20 And man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.

vs.18 Then the Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

vs.21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs...

But the order is inspired as it is, Brett, not as we try to make it fit with our expectations.

The text continues to be abused by those who demand of it what was never intended. We miss so much when we make it fit our interpretation.
Well, Charleen, it seems obvious to me that that the sequence is not meant to be strictly chronological. Indeed, after reading Gen 1 the way grmorton does, I think we should read verse 18 as being a proclamation. Hey, that was strictly chronological after all, if we read 'said' in verse 18 as 'proclaimed.'

[brett]

That is true. But, why should we 'take [the] sequence literal'?

I've said the following before (I think?) -- the ancient Hebrews did not arrange topics in a chronological manner as often as we do, nor take them to be.

Discussing matters with Charleen has always been a challenge to me. She seems to completely ignore points as if they’ve never been made.


Well, Charleen, it seems obvious to me that that the sequence is not meant to be strictly chronological. Indeed, after reading Gen 1 the way grmorton does, I think we should read verse 18 as being a proclamation. Hey, that was strictly chronological after all, if we read 'said' in verse 18 as 'proclaimed.'

Not only this, Hugh Ross (whom she esteems) as well as most of those here who oppose my YEC position all admit the original hebrew left the sequence open (even when read literally). In fact at this point I’m guessing she’s the only hold out.

What she seems to be arguing is whatever the english order (left to right) or hebrew (right to left) we must always assume that to be the chronological order. I guess this is the argument she’s going to repeat over and over. In essence, she’s saying the original hebrew grammar doesn’t matter. :huh: Not sure how to respond to someone like this.

My only point is this. Regardless of the position you take on the age of the earth, Gen. 2 will not support you either way. The contradiction between 1 and 2 is a myth (whether it’s read as a historical narrative or not, or literally or not). Is there a conflict between Gen. 1 and modern scientific beliefs? Of course! But there’s no contradiction in the grammar. To say otherwise is to elevate yourself above all hebrew grammarians.

[Augustine2004]

Is there a conflict between Gen. 1 and modern scientific beliefs? Of course!I don't know why you don't consider grmorton's interpretation to be a plausible concordance between modern science and Genesis (IMO). (I have not yet totally examined his website yet, but I'm making progress, I think.)

[brett]

I don't know why you don't consider grmorton's interpretation to be a plausible concordance between modern science and Genesis (IMO). (I have not yet totally examined his website yet, but I'm making progress, I think.)

Agreed, I have read quickly over GM's interpretation of Gen. 1. I was rather referring to a YEC reading of Gen. 1. That does conflict with the modern timelines of the age of the earth. But it doesn’t conflict with Gen. 2. That’s my point.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Discussing matters with Charleen has always been a challenge to me.

Likewise, I'm sure.

Not only this, Hugh Ross (whom she esteems) as well as most of those here who oppose my YEC position all admit the original hebrew left the sequence open (even when read literally). In fact at this point I’m guessing she’s the only hold out.

You have missed my point.

And, as I had tried to tell Socrates, I can only speak for myself, not another.

Brett, do you or do you not believe Gen. two is in a literal order?

[brett]

Brett, do you or do you not believe Gen. two is in a literal order?

Do I believe Gen. 2 is in a literal order? As opposed to what a figurative order? I have no idea what you're talking about. :no:

I'll just repeat what everybody else seems to understand (even those sharing your views). In the hebrew, the author did not indicate a chronological order of the events described. This has nothing to do with a literal vs. figurative reading. Had he wanted to express their chronological order he could have easily done so. He chose not to.

[Starkman]

Brett,

Would you please both note and quote the Hebrew scholars who support the interpretation that the Hebrew does not suggest a chronological order?

Thanks,

Starkman

[brett]

Brett,

Would you please both note and quote the Hebrew scholars who support the interpretation that the Hebrew does not suggest a chronological order?

Thanks,

Starkman

Aye! Stark, you really are making me work hard on this. Any chance you can get your hands of Sarfati's book? On pages 91-93 he has a very technical section focusing on this verse. It has several footnotes citing several grammarians. You kind of need the whole thing to put it all together. Sometimes he'll quote the source directly, other times hell explain it himself with footnotes citing the source. I really don't want to type the whole thing in. I’m trying to locate a good article on the subject, but haven’t been able to. I think I’ll contact AIG tomorrow and see if they can direct me to something.

But what I’ve shared really isn’t disputed even by non-YECs who understand the issue (as far as I know at least). Have you come across some grammarians that disagree?

[A Beautiful Truth]

Do I believe Gen. 2 is in a literal order? As opposed to what a figurative order? I have no idea what you're talking about. :no:

I'll just repeat what everybody else seems to understand (even those sharing your views). In the hebrew, the author did not indicate a chronological order of the events described. This has nothing to do with a literal vs. figurative reading. Had he wanted to express their chronological order he could have easily done so. He chose not to.

He did express the order, it is clear from the text. We even have cause and effect relationships going on as the reason why it was put in the order it was. Perhaps you will go back and read Etcetera's post, he had some good points for you and anyone else who thinks the writer was not deliberate in the order the events are written in Gen. 2.

~Charleen

(I will try to grab another computer to keep up, but my laptop is being sent away for repairs.)

[brett]

He did express the order, it is clear from the text. We even have cause and effect relationships going on as the reason why it was put in the order it was.

This is simply your opinion Charleen, and frankly no one agrees with you, even those on your side, like Ross. I really have no idea how to respond to you. Doesn't the fact that all hebrew grammarians disagree with you bother you just a little bit? Can you give me one reason to believe you over them?


Perhaps you will go back and read Etcetera's post, he had some good points for you and anyone else who thinks the writer was not deliberate in the order the events are written in Gen. 2.

Etcetera's point (one of them anyway) was that we should use translations to determine meaning. I think the original language is all that matters.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Etcetera's point (one of them anyway) was that we should use translations to determine meaning. I think the original language is all that matters.

Answer his post, since you don't seem to understand mine. He has some great points that I'd like to see you and others address.

~Charleen

[brett]

Answer his post, since you don't seem to understand mine. He has some great points that I'd like to see you and others address.

~Charleen

I already answered him directly. Go back and look. I even told him he swayed me with one of his arguments.

BTW, Charleen. Did if ever occur to you, you're the one misunderstanding? Just a thought.

[A Beautiful Truth]

I already answered him directly. Go back and look. I even told him he swayed me with one of his arguments.

BTW, Charleen. Did if ever occur to you, you're the one misunderstanding? Just a thought.

I'll go ahead and repost the points that I'd like you to consider from Etcetera's post #61, because you did not directly address them.

If the author wanted to communicate the animals were created right then and there, to be auditioned as helpmates for Adam, then what was the naming thing all about? What does naming have to do with match making?

The answer, of course, is that naming the animals has everything to do with the finding of a mate for Adam.

In the ANE, a name is not just an identifier to keep siblings straight. It is seen as the embodiment either of what that person is or represents or of the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the person doing the naming. Names were a very big deal in the Old Testament (and in the New, for that matter).

The connection between naming and finding a mate is made explicit in Genesis 2.20:

The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the heavens, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper meet for him.

It is the name given to each animal that would let God know (who is waiting to see what he would call them in 2.19; anthropomorphism in action) that none of them was suitable as a mate for Adam. Apparently he called none of them mate, or suitable-for-me, or so forth. None was suitable as a mate, because Adam gave none of them a name leading to that conclusion. So God gives him a mate from his own flesh...

...Both of these translations of the original Hebrew appear to understand Genesis 2.19-20 as part of the sequence of events of 2.18-25, not as a flashback to some time beforehand. The ancient translations ought to at least be factored into the equation.

(bold mine)

I do not believe you have truly considered the above, for, if you had, you would see that this is a good support that Gen. 2 is describing a very important order of events and the reason for that order. You change a meaning/purpose of the text by saying that there "is no chronological order specified in chapter 2". There is an order specified, and Etcetera gave a good argument as to why the order is the way it is.

~Charleen

[Augustine2004]

Charleen, you seem confused. Suppose grmorton's proclamation idea does not apply to verse 18. That is, what follows the 'said' (better translated as 'proclaimed'??) is NOT a proclamation. Then when did Yehovah God say that? Before the actions described in verses 19-20? Or what seems more likely, after verse 21?

[Starkman]

Hey Augustine,

Say, if you would, refer to a specific post (and even create a link to it) for speed and ease of use to the reader...especially when the threads get long!

Thanks,

Starkman

[Augustine2004]

Starkman, apparently you do not know grmorton's proclamation interpretation of Genesis. If so, my apologies.


http://home.entouch.net/dmd/search.htm

If you'd rather do a short tour, here are a few relevant links:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/daysofproclamation.htm
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/synop.htm
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/genesis.htm
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF12-97Morton.html

[A Beautiful Truth]

Charleen, you seem confused. Suppose grmorton's proclamation idea does not apply to verse 18. That is, what follows the 'said' (better translated as 'proclaimed'??) is NOT a proclamation. Then when did Yehovah God say that? Before the actions described in verses 19-20? Or what seems more likely, after verse 21?

Please explain what you mean. I think the writer put the "when" exactly where he did on purpose and for good reason. The text is clear, Augustine, God created animals because man was alone. Don't mix it all up for the sake of "scientific accuracy" because you change a very important point that the text makes when you do that.

[Augustine2004]

Charleen, didn't you mean God created Eve (not 'animals') because Adam was alone?

[A Beautiful Truth]

Charleen, didn't you mean God created Eve (not 'animals') because Adam was alone?

No, I meant what I wrote. God created animals because Adam was alone. We know that after naming those animals, Adam realized that none of them were suitable for him. Then God created Eve. Please read the text again and tell me how this clear point errs.

~Charleen

[Starkman]

Thanks, Aug!

Starkman

[Robyn Banks]

... the hebrew in Gen. 2 leaves the sequence open and it’s the readers responsibility to determine the sequence from context. This is exactly what the NIV translators did and why their translation comes out a little different. Notice the contrast:

NASB
18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

NIV
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

I agree with your point that the context of Genesis 2 demonstrates that Yhwh God made the animals for Adam as his helper, after he made Adam.

But there is one important grammatical point from the Hebrew that I don't think anyone here has noted, and which is relevant to the interpretation of the text.

In 2.18, Yhwh God announces that he "will make a helper" which is to be Adam's counterpart. The form of the word used for 'helper' is particularly instructive. For instead of using the usual feminine term for helper, (ZRH ('zrh), the author has deliberately chosen a neutral form of the word, (ZR ('zr).

If the announcement to make a helper in 2.18 is only fulfilled in 2.21-22 in the creation of woman (as the argument goes), then you have the strange situation of the author deliberately choosing a neutral term for "helper" instead of the normal feminine term. Yet, the normal feminine term is precisely what would have been applicable to Eve!!

So, this grammatical point should also be considered, along with the context of the passage as a whole. It is quite relevant to the interpretation of the passage, and weighs further in favour of understanding the creation of animals to follow the announcement by God that he will create a helper (ZR ('zr).

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[kofh2u]

I agree with your point that the context of Genesis 2 demonstrates that Yhwh God made the animals for Adam as his helper, after he made Adam.

But there is one important grammatical point from the Hebrew that I don't think anyone here has noted, and which is relevant to the interpretation of the text.

In 2.18, Yhwh God announces that he "will make a helper" which is to be Adam's counterpart. The form of the word used for 'helper' is particularly instructive. For instead of using the usual feminine term for helper, (ZRH ('zrh), the author has deliberately chosen a neutral form of the word, (ZR ('zr).

If the announcement to make a helper in 2.18 is only fulfilled in 2.21-22 in the creation of woman (as the argument goes), then you have the strange situation of the author deliberately choosing a neutral term for "helper" instead of the normal feminine term. Yet, the normal feminine term is precisely what would have been applicable to Eve!!

So, this grammatical point should also be considered, along with the context of the passage as a whole. It is quite relevant to the interpretation of the passage, and weighs further in favour of understanding the creation of animals to follow the announcement by God that he will create a helper (ZR ('zr).

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks


Hello robyn,
I haven't read a post from you for awhile.
As always, you make a stimulating distinction here.
Chapter 2 has hardly been interpreted much beyond the point of a myth, not that it is untrue, mind you.

The "rib," the tree of life, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the serpent, and so much more would imply allegory, if the church would sit for such a point of view.

No matter how the interpretations maybe spun, coming back to this second chapter in an attempt to explain it, after all the chapters of scripture which follow have been read and digested, still is inadequate literary criticism.

The story has never had a rational overview. This is in spite of mythopaeic approaches, simple acceptance as mere Hebrew Epic, metaphysical spirituastic excuses, and especially, literal acknowledgements.

The interpretations to date, of this story of man and woman, Eden, it is unconvincing.
I believe this is as intended.

The seven true ribs of our human anatomy excuse the suggestion that woman was made metaphorically, from one of seven "ribs,"or from one part of the seven components of the psyche, our Anima (feminine term)/animus (neutral term).

Chapter 2 is further complicated by the evidence some attempt to synthesize the two separate sources from which it was canonized, as you know. In 900 BC, when the priesthood collected all the various and slightly different source material, the J and the E sources were both made to "fit in," or find somewhat separate compatibiities with one another.

Nevertheless, if we read Genesis 2 in the pre-set point of view that starts as demonstrated below, the loose ends disappear and a wholeness and rational aspdct to the symbolize makes complete sense, as Oscam would say.

Gen. 2:7 And the Lord God (of all the Universe) formed man of the "dust" of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living psyke'.

[Augustine2004]

Robyn, in my interlinear Bible, the word translated 'helper' in verse 18 has the Strong number of 5828. According to the Crosswalk website online lexicon
http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05828&version=nas
this is noun masculine. How did you determine that it was neuter? There is a mark below the word that maybe indicates neuter, but I do not know Hebrew grammar.

Suppose you are right, though. The word translated 'helper' is a neuter noun. How then does it follow that it does NOT apply to Eve? Suppose one is speaking about someone, and the person being spoken of could be either a certain man or a certain woman. In the context, we have two possible alternatives: one of the animals or Eve. Please explain the reasons why you think the word translated 'helper' could NOT be a reference to Eve in the context.

[Robyn Banks]

For instead of using the usual feminine term for helper, עזרה ('zrh), the author has deliberately chosen a neutral form of the word, עזר ('zr).
Robyn, in my interlinear Bible, the word translated 'helper' in verse 18 has the Strong number of 5828. According to the Crosswalk website online lexicon
http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05828&version=nas
this is noun masculine. How did you determine that it was neuter?
It is not 'neuter'. It is masculine. There are no "neuters" in Hebrew.

The masculine is neutral between feminine and masculine helpers. That is to say, a plausible reason why (ZR ('zr) was used instead of (ZRH ('zrh) is that when the helper is unknown to be either masculine or feminine, (ZR ('zr) was considered more appropriate to refer to either.

By contrast, and this is my point, the normal word for helper, (ZRH ('zrh), is definitely a feminine word. While it could refer to a masculine helper (only the word is feminine, not the potential object), it would be entirely appropriate to apply to Eve. If it was intended to be applied to Eve, it is mystifying why it would be changed to the neutral masculine.

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[A Beautiful Truth]

Robyn,

First, I must say that you have brought up great points. I hope you don't mind, but I copied and pasted your post over to Biblical Languages to get their feedback as well. If you are right then I think this is a strong point in favor of my argument.

You had orginally replied to Brett:

I agree with your point that the context of Genesis 2 demonstrates that Yhwh God made the animals for Adam as his helper, after he made Adam.

I don't think that was Brett's point. He does not think that Gen. 2 actually has a chronology.

But there is one important grammatical point from the Hebrew that I don't think anyone here has noted, and which is relevant to the interpretation of the text.

In 2.18, Yhwh God announces that he "will make a helper" which is to be Adam's counterpart. The form of the word used for 'helper' is particularly instructive. For instead of using the usual feminine term for helper, (ZRH ('zrh), the author has deliberately chosen a neutral form of the word, (ZR ('zr).

If the announcement to make a helper in 2.18 is only fulfilled in 2.21-22 in the creation of woman (as the argument goes), then you have the strange situation of the author deliberately choosing a neutral term for "helper" instead of the normal feminine term. Yet, the normal feminine term is precisely what would have been applicable to Eve!!

So, this grammatical point should also be considered, along with the context of the passage as a whole. It is quite relevant to the interpretation of the passage, and weighs further in favour of understanding the creation of animals to follow the announcement by God that he will create a helper (ZR ('zr).

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

Look for your post over in Biblical Languages. I hope to get more input.

Thanks,

Charleen

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

I haven't read all the posts here! But here is my understanding:

Genesis 2:9 And the Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground-- trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

I think this refers to planting the garden, not to creation. Maybe God planted seeds, to start the garden, he certainly makes every seed grow (1 Cor. 3:6), so that fits with this verse. Or God might have made the plants out of nothing! It's certainly up to him, and he could do this either way.

Similarly with this verse:

Genesis 2:19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

I think God made creatures, in a special act, after initial creation, and then asked, "Now what would this be?" "A platypus!", says Adam. And off runs the platypus. Thus again, this is not about initial creation, but rather making creatures, just for Adam to see, which I expect Adam would have found quite interesting.

Now there's one other difficulty:

Genesis 2:4-7 When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens … and no shrub of the field had yet appeared … the Lord God formed the man from the dust.

Now this seems to show that God made man before plants appeared. But there's another way to read verse 2. Here is the NASB:

Genesis 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.

Then the "when" of verse 4 doesn't reach all the way to verse 7, and thus verse 6 could come chronologically after verse 7, or "shrub and plant of the field" could refer to cultivated plants, not to plants in general. I've always wondered how sheep survived before there were shepherds…

Blessings,
Lee

[A Beautiful Truth]

I think God made creatures, in a special act, after initial creation, and then asked, "Now what would this be?" "A platypus!", says Adam. And off runs the platypus. Thus again, this is not about initial creation, but rather making creatures, just for Adam to see, which I expect Adam would have found quite interesting.

But consider, God started His day of rest from the work of creation after He made man (chapter one). His rest from His creation continues (John 5:17; Heb.4). If He created animals in a fiat act after Adam, He would not be resting from His work of creation. I do encourage you to read more of the thread. Especially Etcetera's post #61 and Robyn Banks recent contribution.

[Augustine2004]

Ah, so the 2004 version of Augustine continues to trip up on fine points of things linguistic. :heh: Thanks, Robyn for setting me straight!

Actually, I think the neutral form is appropriate in the context. See, the phrase that is in question is not just 'helper' but rather 'helper suitable {or comparable} to {Adam}.' Indeed, notice the last part of verse 20. That has the same phrase with the same form of the noun: 'But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.'

To me it is not a mystery but simply a fine point of grammar. If it were merely 'helper' then the feminine form might be appropriate. However, when the word is modified like it is in the context, then I would think the neutral form would be more appropriate, even when the helper eventually turns out to be female.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Ah, so the 2004 version of Augustine continues to trip up on fine points of things linguistic. :heh: Thanks, Robyn for setting me straight!

Actually, I think the neutral form is appropriate in the context. See, the phrase that is in question is not just 'helper' but rather 'helper suitable {or comparable} to {Adam}.' Indeed, notice the last part of verse 20. That has the same phrase with the same form of the noun: 'But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.'

To me it is not a mystery but simply a fine point of grammar. If it were merely 'helper' then the feminine form might be appropriate. However, when the word is modified like it is in the context, then I would think the neutral form would be more appropriate, even when the helper eventually turns out to be female.

But you are missing the point again.

Please answer my other post in which I wrote: "No, I meant what I wrote. God created animals because Adam was alone. We know that after naming those animals, Adam realized that none of them were suitable for him. Then God created Eve. Please read the text again and tell me how this clear point errs."

There is no way around the plain meaning of the text, Aug. Those who try to make this out to be something other than its clear order import their own interpretation to prove their interpretation. It's just not fair to the text.

[Robyn Banks]

If you are right then I think this is a strong point in favor of my argument.
Hi Charleen,

I think it provides additional support for your argument. It certainly would be difficult to explain the odd form of the word if the author intended applying it to Eve alone.

Obviously it is hardly determinative (what is?), but it does corroborate your argument from the context of the passage.

Robyn Banks

[Robyn Banks]

If it were merely 'helper' then the feminine form might be appropriate. However, when the word is modified like it is in the context, then I would think the neutral form would be more appropriate, even when the helper eventually turns out to be female.
Whether the helper is called a "suitable" one or not, it has been changed to the neutral form of the word. So your latest point is quite irrelevant. I have difficulty understanding what logical basis you had for introducing it, if any.

Robyn Banks

[Starkman]

I like going after the theological-relationship significance of Scripture, so I'll try to contribute from that perspective.

What God may be saying by using the neuter Hebrew word for helper is to say something about the fact that no animal was suited for Adam BEFORE resolving the matter with the introduction of Eve. In other words, the author is driving home the point that God's image cannot be found in animals, but can only be found in concomitance with another type of adam...Eve (Hebrew for mankind).

The author isn't addressing the chronology of creation; he has done that already in chapter 1 (and with some awsome theology driving it!). Rather, he is contributing to the concept of YHWH's previous statement about man's creation (1:26): "Let us create man in our image . . . . The "us" can only be found in the likes of Eve, made in reflection of the knowledge that no animal will ever suffice to say something about man's relationship with God, man's likeness with God, and man having been created in the image of God.

You may still maintain that the chronological order is still out of sync with chapter 1. Perhaps so, but the only way the author can make his point is to re-arrange the narrative order for purposes of theological relationship development, not to create a chronological contradiction.

Anyway, I hope this contributes.

Starkman

[Robyn Banks]

What God may be saying by using the neuter [sic] Hebrew word for helper is to say something about the fact that no animal was suited for Adam BEFORE resolving the matter with the introduction of Eve. In other words, the author is driving home the point that God's image cannot be found in animals, but can only be found in concomitance with another type of adam...Eve (Hebrew for mankind).
Genesis 2:18 uses the (quite unusual) neutral masculine form of עזרה ('zrh - helper), which is עזר ('zr - helper). Not the 'neuter'. There are not neuters in Hebrew.

And, more to the point, Genesis 2:18 uses this odd form of the word when God says, "I will make him [Adam] a helper (עזר) as his partner." So God's intention to make a helper (עזר) is in the future. And together with the odd form of the word, it supports the argument from context that God makes animals after Adam is formed in Genesis 2.

What is more remarkable is that the editor/author who brought Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 together clearly was unperturbed by the clash of chronologies. Only later did more literal interpreters (such as the later rabbis and Augustine) get bothered by the clash, and try to develop harmonizations. It was simply a non-issue for this original editor/author.

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[kofh2u]

It is not 'neuter'. It is masculine. There are no "neuters" in Hebrew.

The masculine is neutral between feminine and masculine helpers. That is to say, a plausible reason why (ZR ('zr) was used instead of (ZRH ('zrh) is that when the helper is unknown to be either masculine or feminine, (ZR ('zr) was considered more appropriate to refer to either.

By contrast, and this is my point, the normal word for helper, (ZRH ('zrh), is definitely a feminine word. While it could refer to a masculine helper (only the word is feminine, not the potential object), it would be entirely appropriate to apply to Eve. If it was intended to be applied to Eve, it is mystifying why it would be changed to the neutral masculine.

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks


Then you conclude that God gave Adam a chance to check out all these animals as "helpers" but none were found suitable.

So, recognizing that the best helpers man has ever had from earliest times was indeed animals, ... are we to conclude that bestiality is the interpretation of "helper" in the Hebrew, and that the only rrason it is sinful is because Adam turned it down?

[Augustine2004]

Nowhere does Genesis 2:18-19 say EXPLICITLY that the animals were made after man. You have to keep in mind that the ancient Hebrews were not as chronologically minded as we moderns are. They didn't even always follow the principle that chronological order can be assumed be the same as the textual order, whenever the context does not have or give any explicit time indications, such as, 'Now it was Day 2'.

We have 2 candidate timelines:

Charleen and Robyn
Adam created.
V.18
Animals created.
Animals brought before him to be named.

or

Verse 18.
Adam created.
Animals created.
Animals brought to him to be named.


the rest of the world (kidding)
verse 18.
Animals created.
Adam created.
Animals brought before him to be named.

All versions are equally possible from just reading v18-19. The reason Charleen and Robyn favor the first timeline is the reasoning that God would not say, 'It is not good . . . is right for him' (v.18) unless Adam already existed at that point. That is a good reason, but it is only an assumption.

It's quite possible God in v.18 was actually looking forward to a time when Adam would be created later (from our time-bound standpoint). Remember, God was not just creating, He was planning as well. It's like a home decorator saying to herself, 'I think I will have that couch in there. No, the color would clash, but I can change the couch's cover so that the colors will match.' That would be before the couch is brought into the room. Indeed, it's possible that the covering on the couch is changed before it is brought into the room, so that there is never any actual clash of color.

[kofh2u]

Genesis 2:18 uses the (quite unusual) neutral masculine form of ???? ('zrh - helper), which is ??? ('zr - helper). Not the 'neuter'. There are not neuters in Hebrew.

And, more to the point, Genesis 2:18 uses this odd form of the word when God says, "I will make him [Adam] a helper (???) as his partner." So God's intention to make a helper (???) is in the future. And together with the odd form of the word, it supports the argument from context that God makes animals after Adam is formed in Genesis 2.

What is more remarkable is that the editor/author who brought Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 together clearly was unperturbed by the clash of chronologies. Only later did more literal interpreters (such as the later rabbis and Augustine) get bothered by the clash, and try to develop harmonizations. It was simply a non-issue for this original editor/author.

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks


I was sooooo convinced of what you imply here: that Chapter 2 is totally unconcerned with the work of creation in Chapter one, God resting, and all.

Sooooo sure, that I dismissed Chapter 2 as a repetition of one, even before reading your own comments. Chronology in relation to the external crration of God was the subject matter of Chpt 1. Chapt 2 concernc man's internal development, the image of God, the mind.

I was sooo totally uninformed about the support from early church fathers who also agree that chronology would be a problem if we assumed chpt 2 was an extention of one. Thank you for the re-inforcing information!

My Bible overview, Theistic Evolution, beginning with chapter 1, pre-set my disposition for understanding Chapter2. I read it as God resting while man's evolving mind was maturating, becoming cognizant of his environment, and developing.

The "helper" is a mental facility, developing in this first species of life forms. A form that would be distinguished from all other forms by the amazing creation of a mind!

My take was like this:

Gen. 2:18 And the LORD God, (Father Nature implied), said, It is not good that the man, (this libidinal thinking creature) should be alone; I will make him an help meet, (a mental counter-part) for him.

It would be inconceivable to me that scripture would ignor the creation of man's mind, puny little weak man who ONLY because of his mind is capable of "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

But, so far, that is just me.

[Robyn Banks]

Then you conclude that God gave Adam a chance to check out all these animals as "helpers" but none were found suitable.
Yes.


So, recognizing that the best helpers man has ever had from earliest times was indeed animals, ... are we to conclude that bestiality is the interpretation of "helper" in the Hebrew, and that the only rrason it is sinful is because Adam turned it down?
You wrongly assume that all women are good for as fitting helpers is sexual intercourse. This is grossly incorrect.

Robyn Banks

[Robyn Banks]

Nowhere does Genesis 2:18-19 say EXPLICITLY that the animals were made after man.
Obviously. If it was quite explicit, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, we must examine all of the evidence, and come to the better interpretation.




You have to keep in mind that the ancient Hebrews were not as chronologically minded as we moderns are.
That is quite right. And yes - I do keep that in mind. That is one aspect of all the evidence required to be weighed in coming to the better interpretation. However, this is of less consequence here, where it is not a 'chonology' we are dealing with, but a narrative.




All versions are equally possible from just reading v18-19.
Nonsense. The conclusion from the evidence will depend only on which interpretation is most plausible.




The reason Charleen and Robyn favor the first timeline is the reasoning that God would not say, 'It is not good . . . is right for him' (v.18) unless Adam already existed at that point.
I have no idea what 'reason' you are indicating. This is not a 'reason'.

I have many 'reasons' for concluding that Gen 2 tells a story where the animals are created after Adam. But your 'reason' is not one of them.




That is a good reason, but it is only an assumption.
I make NO assumptions. The conclusion as to the better interpretation of a text is made from considering all of the available evidence.




It's quite possible God in v.18 was actually looking forward to a time when Adam would be created later (from our time-bound standpoint).
Highly implausible tendentious nonsense.

If you want to dream up bizarre and improbable interpretations of a narrative, then please go ahead. But the best you will do is prove that you have an improbable interpretation of the passage. Why would you want to do so? Are you not interested in the best interpretation of Scripture?

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[kofh2u]

Genesis 2:18 uses the (quite unusual) neutral masculine form of ???? ('zrh - helper), which is ??? ('zr - helper). Not the 'neuter'. There are not neuters in Hebrew.

And, more to the point, Genesis 2:18 uses this odd form of the word when God says, "I will make him [Adam] a helper (???) as his partner." So God's intention to make a helper (???) is in the future. And together with the odd form of the word, it supports the argument from context that God makes animals after Adam is formed in Genesis 2.

What is more remarkable is that the editor/author who brought Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 together clearly was unperturbed by the clash of chronologies. Only later did more literal interpreters (such as the later rabbis and Augustine) get bothered by the clash, and try to develop harmonizations. It was simply a non-issue for this original editor/author.

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks


I was sooooo convinced of what you imply here: that Chapter 2 is totally unconcerned with the work of creation in Chapter one, God resting, and all.

Sooooo sure, that I dismissed Chapter 2 as a repetition of one, even before reading your own comments. Chronology in relation to the external crration of God was the subject matter of Chpt 1. Chapt 2 concernc man's internal development, the image of God, the mind.

I was sooo totally uninformed about the support from early church fathers who also agree that chronology would be a problem if we assumed chpt 2 was an extention of one. Thank you for the re-inforcing information!

My Bible overview, Theistic Evolution, beginning with chapter 1, pre-set my disposition for understanding Chapter2. I read it as God resting while man's evolving mind was maturating, becoming cognizant of his environment, and developing.

The "helper" is a mental facility, developing in this first species of life forms. A form that would be distinguished from all other forms by the amazing creation of a mind!

My take was like this:

Gen. 2:18 And the LORD God, (Father Nature implied), said, It is not good that the man, (this libidinal thinking creature) should be alone; I will make him an help meet, (a mental counter-part) for him.

It would be inconceivable to me that scripture would ignor the creation of man's mind, puny little weak man who ONLY because of his mind is capable of "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

But, so far, that is just me.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Then you conclude that God gave Adam a chance to check out all these animals as "helpers" but none were found suitable.

So, recognizing that the best helpers man has ever had from earliest times was indeed animals, ... are we to conclude that bestiality is the interpretation of "helper" in the Hebrew, and that the only rrason it is sinful is because Adam turned it down?

So helper means sex helper, is that right? I don't think the author of the text shared your definition.

[A Beautiful Truth]

The reason Charleen and Robyn favor the first timeline is the reasoning that God would not say, 'It is not good . . . is right for him' (v.18) unless Adam already existed at that point. That is a good reason, but it is only an assumption.


Rather, how about the terms that are used like "I will make him a helper and then directly afterwards we have "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man...". Why did He make them and bring them to the man? I believe the honest interpretation is recognizing this as a cause/effect relationship which does imply chrononlogy. If it is to be taken literaly, we have a contradiction with chapter one, the reason why you and Brett fight the obvious order in chapter two.

I would really like it if you could go back and critique Etcetera's post #61. He really laid out a good argument as to why the order is put as it is. Please look it over and tell us what you think about his argument. I'll go ahead and repost his points and my previous comments. Perhaps you will look it over and respond.

The answer, of course, is that naming the animals has everything to do with the finding of a mate for Adam.

In the ANE, a name is not just an identifier to keep siblings straight. It is seen as the embodiment either of what that person is or represents or of the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the person doing the naming. Names were a very big deal in the Old Testament (and in the New, for that matter).

The connection between naming and finding a mate is made explicit in Genesis 2.20:

It is the name given to each animal that would let God know (who is waiting to see what he would call them in 2.19; anthropomorphism in action) that none of them was suitable as a mate for Adam. Apparently he called none of them mate, or suitable-for-me, or so forth. None was suitable as a mate, because Adam gave none of them a name leading to that conclusion. So God gives him a mate from his own flesh...

...Both of these translations of the original Hebrew appear to understand Genesis 2.19-20 as part of the sequence of events of 2.18-25, not as a flashback to some time beforehand. The ancient translations ought to at least be factored into the equation.

Bold mine. Genesis chap. 2 gives an order here. Man was alone, God made animals, animals were not suitable, God made Eve. If this sequence is to be taken literal, you have a contradiction with Gen. one. You are saying that the Bible is not really saying that God made animals from the dust and brought them to the man who was at that time alone.

If the text said what you are pushing, the sequence would look more like this:

vs. 19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

vs. 20 And man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.

vs.18 Then the Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

vs.21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs...

But the order is inspired as it is, Brett, [Augustine 2004] not as we try to make it fit with our expectations.

The text continues to be abused by those who demand of it what was never intended. We miss so much when we make it fit our interpretation.

[kofh2u]

So helper means sex helper, is that right? I don't think the author of the text shared your definition.

1) Of course not!
At least not exactly that.
I was reducing robyn's observstion to the absurdity that "helper" is a person or animal.

Thevpathos of Gen 2 is that God sees that man can function, can name the animals in his mind, can think sematically and symbolically as regards the world around him.

But, his mental capacity is restricted. He needs "help" in abstracting his model of his environment.
Man is not perusing the animals fof this kind of help, psychological help. And, obviously, the dominion over animals is directed at getting the "help" of their physical servitude.


2) Chpt 2 is not a chronology of the external creation, it is not a recap of Gen 1.
It is a description of the inner mental world of this man He has created. This is a man who has been instructed to have dominion over the animals. Gen 2 is about man enlarging his internal world.
The "helper" is a psychic entity that is to be developed by the process of evolution.

This missing entity is to be useful, helping the carnal, animal-like, instinctual, early form of man to advance, evolve, understand and control his environment so as to have dominion. In Adam, this neutral entity is the Animus, the Mother Principle. It will manifest in the physical embodiment of Eve, in the feminine form of the Anima.

Gen. 2:5 "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth,..."

That is, before it was part of the reality as understood in man's evolving mind... before it was in the concrete reality of Adam's thinking. In Gen 1, God had already made animals part of the environment external to man's image of the world.

..."and every herb of the field before it grew"...

Meaning, grew as a mental construct.

..." for the LORD God had not caused it to "rain,"...

Here, rain is a simile for man's mental perceptions yet to awaken fully. I refer to the evolutionary process, being in the developmental stage.

"...and there was not a man,..."

This suggests that the rational mind was not yet able to abstract a model of his external environment.

..."to till,"...

In this metaphor, "till" is applied in the sense of "contemplation" of the "ground," meaning environment.

From Gen 1, existentially speaking, within man's internal reality, before man recognizes the animals and plants, they are not there... even though the "tree" has fallen, the sound dloes not yet exist.

3) Animus = masculine

Anima = feminine

4) And the LORD God, (Father Nature), caused a deep sleep, (a progressive evolution) to fall upon (Ramapithecus), Adam, (to change him), and he (evolved over many millions of years as if he had ) slept: and he, (the Universal Power), took one of his ribs, (that is, analogous to his seven subconscious, archetypal psychic entities), and closed up, (or limited to function of) the flesh (of that masculine form of the facility) instead thereof;

5) See. Not about sex.

6) Yes, I democratically respect your right in regard to your belief: "I don't think the author of the text shared your definition."

7) The TE take on Gen 2 is that scripture now focuses on Gen1:26-7, the image of God, the Truth and Reality of the creation which was described as seven Geological Eras.

The universe, within, sees creation, without,
One formed by mind of man who thinks because of doubt.
Behind nature's pattern, her universal scheme,
Lies an Atomism, as was Democritus’ theme.

[Starkman]

Genesis 2:18 uses the (quite unusual) neutral masculine form of עזרה ('zrh - helper), which is עזר ('zr - helper). Not the 'neuter'. There are not neuters in Hebrew.Sorry about that! I don't know Hebrew, and my eyes tricked me!

And, more to the point, Genesis 2:18 uses this odd form of the word when God says, "I will make him [Adam] a helper (עזר) as his partner." So God's intention to make a helper (עזר) is in the future. And together with the odd form of the word, it supports the argument from context that God makes animals after Adam is formed in Genesis 2.I think I made that point also, but I noted that it was the author's intent to do so in order to make a profound theological point.

What is more remarkable is that the editor/author who brought Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 together clearly was unperturbed by the clash of chronologies. Only later did more literal interpreters (such as the later rabbis and Augustine) get bothered by the clash, and try to develop harmonizations. It was simply a non-issue for this original editor/author.I think the same. The author wasn't interested in "reconciling" anything. He was making a point.

That Robyn feels the Genesis 2 account supports animals having passed by Adam to see if there was a suited helper, doesn't, in fact have to be a sexual issue, as he stated. However, the obvious would come to the forefront sooner or later: even if dog is man's best friend, the world won't go far without reproduction. This is why I see such a profound meaning behind the animals showing up first in chapter 2, passing by Adam before Eve shows up; to drill home the point that no animal can be the suited helper for Adam.

Starkman

[Augustine2004]

Robyn one reason we are disagreeing is that you tend to interpret small passages in isolation, whereas I consider much broader context. So if your interpretation of Genesis 2 disagrees with your interpretation of Genesis 1, you accept that. I, on the other hand, if I found my interpretation of Gen 2 to disagree with mine of Gen 1, I reconsider either interpretation and attempt to change it into agreement.

It is improbable that a later author would knowingly contradict an earlier account, or be allowed to get away with unwittingly contradicting it. That is why we have to assume that there are no contradictions.

I admit that if you consider v.2:18-19 in ISOLATION, it does look like the intended understanding is that the animals were created after Adam. That would, however, be a jumping to a conclusion based on failure to consider broad context and ignoring the point made just above.

Neither Charleen nor Robyn offers any evidence that the author of Gen 2 meant to contradict Gen 1 in order to make some 'theological' point (bizarre and tendititous argument, to borrow Robyn's termninology). Or was allowed to by his listeners ('Hey, you are contradicting the first part of Genesis, aren't you!?').

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

The Lord God then formed from the earth.…This works fine if God made more animals after he created Adam, though…

But consider, God started His day of rest from the work of creation after He made man (chapter one). His rest from His creation continues (John 5:17; Heb.4). If He created animals in a fiat act after Adam, He would not be resting from His work of creation.But if the special-animals-for-Adam were made on the sixth day, that was before the day of rest.

And maybe we can look elsewhere for other acts of creation, after Adam:

Luke 1:35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."

Not to mention Isaac! And Elizabeth…

Then there are these verses:

Psalm 51:10 Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.

Ephesians 2:15 His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace.

Blessings,
Lee

[A Beautiful Truth]

Hi everyone,

This works fine if God made more animals after he created Adam, though…

But if the special-animals-for-Adam were made on the sixth day, that was before the day of rest.

I think you should look at chapter one again. God rested after He made man. You screw the order of creation up if you say God created animals after man. Even doing that you still do not escape literal contradiction. And that is what this is about. Is there a literal chronology in chapter 2? If so, we have contradiction with chap. 1. If it is not literal, then how do we know we are to take the rest of the account as literal?

And maybe we can look elsewhere for other acts of creation, after Adam:

Luke 1:35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."

Not to mention Isaac! And Elizabeth…

Then there are these verses:

Psalm 51:10 Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.

Ephesians 2:15 His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace.

Blessings,
Lee

These are not "acts of creation". While He still rests from His work week of creation, He still does work in our lives. It is different work. One day God will create a new heaven and new earth but until then his work of creation has ceased. Please read the account in John 5 of healing on the Sabbath.

Charleen

[kofh2u]

Hello Starkman,
You say:
I think I made that point also, (out of Gen 1's order) but I noted that it was the author's intent to do so in order to make a profound theological point.

KOFHY:
Yes, a point is being made. God created the animals, then man. (Gen 1).
Now, Gen 2 is about man looking over all these animals, classifying and naming them.
.
You speculate that:
...Robyn feels the Genesis 2 account supports animals having passed by Adam to see if there was a suited helper, doesn't, in fact have to be a sexual issue, as he stated. However, the obvious would come to the forefront sooner or later: even if dog is man's best friend, the world won't go far without reproduction. This is why I see such a profound meaning behind the animals showing up first in chapter 2, passing by Adam before Eve shows up; to drill home the point that no animal can be the suited helper for Adam.

KOFHY:
If we didn't already believe that the scriptures contain the truth and IS the Truth, the interpretation that bestiality is considered here, that the is a "chicken or the egg" issue, and that a neutral noun implies a help mate that could be gay ... well, the long accepted mrtaphysics is sure a "camel-size" man made-ip interpretation of Genesis 2.

Robyn's careful analysis OUGHT make a re-evaluation of Genesis 2 appropriate to this next generation of educated, informed, geeky net people. But, I am sure this generation, previous that to follow, will strain gnats out of a sensible rational meaning.

Gen. 2:6 But there went up a mist,...

Here, the word mist ought be interpreted to mean: "a forming mental illusion in this species of man"

The verse continues:
"from the earth,"...

Earth is the solid material reality of our existence. It imp,ies that man is observing developing life forms. The mist of the clouded fullness of all God has created is permeating every aspect of the environment as if it had... "watered the whole face of the ground."

Compare this to the verse written concisely as follows:

Gen. 2:6 But there went up a mist, (a forming mental illusion in this species of man), from the (developing life forms of the) earth, and (it permeated every aspect of the environment as if it had) watered the whole face of the ground.

God had formed man, had breatged life into him and now, man "became a living psyke.'"

Gen. 2:7 And the LORD God, (Universe), formed man from the dust (of chemical elements) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living psyke' (Gr.).

[lee_merrill]

Hi Charleen,

Lee: But if the special-animals-for-Adam were made on the sixth day, that was before the day of rest.

Charleen: I think you should look at chapter one again. God rested after He made man.All I am saying is that God made some examples of animals, that he had made already, after he made man. And before he made Eve! So I think this is not inconsistent. So far…

Charleen: Is there a literal chronology in chapter 2?Yes, I think that can be held, 1) Man created, 2) A garden planted, 3) Sample animals specially made for the naming ceremony, 4) Eve created.

Charleen: These are not "acts of creation". While He still rests from His work week of creation, He still does work in our lives. ... Please read the account in John 5 of healing on the Sabbath.John 5:17 Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working."

I think that actually supports the possibility that God is working again now! Not resting, in the sense of not creating any more.

Blessings,
Lee

[A Beautiful Truth]

Hi Charleen,

All I am saying is that God made some examples of animals, that he had made already, after he made man. And before he made Eve! So I think this is not inconsistent. So far…

Yes, I think that can be held, 1) Man created, 2) A garden planted, 3) Sample animals specially made for the naming ceremony, 4) Eve created.

John 5:17 Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working."

I think that actually supports the possibility that God is working again now! Not resting, in the sense of not creating any more.

Blessings,
Lee

A while back a poster here, BrianB wrote a paper in which this topic is addressed please consider this from Brain's paper at:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13180

Eternal Seventh Day

The eternal nature of the seventh day is another evidence of non-literalistic interpretation required for the days of Genesis 1. Two points need to be made.

1. The seventh day means a normal solar day. It has a numerical qualifier that serves to narrow the semantic field allowing only for a normal day interpretation, just like the other six occurrences in Genesis 1.

2. The seventh day refers to a long and even unending time. This is perhaps hinted at by the lack of the "evening and morning" refrain. It is certainly suggested by the nature of the day as God's rest, meaning his enthronement over his creation that will never cease.

The exegesis of New Testament authors supports this interpretation as well.

Hebrews 4

Hebrews 4 concerns the promised Sabbath-rest for the people of God. God rested in Genesis 2:2, and because we are to imitate him, it is our eschatological focus as ones made in the divine image to enter into his rest. While God rested on the seventh day, his rest that we are called to enter into is still ongoing as shown by several texts in Hebrews 4. Verse one tells us that the promise of entering his rest still stands:

Heb 4:1 - Therefore we must be wary that, while the promise of entering his rest remains open, none of you may seem to have come short of it.

In fact, the author of Hebrews appears to equate the seventh day of creation with his rest:

Heb 4:4-5 - For he has spoken somewhere about the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works,” but to repeat the text cited earlier: “They will never enter my rest!”

If God's rest is still ongoing, and the "seventh day" is his rest as the author of Hebrews says, then this means that the seventh day is still ongoing.

John 5:17

In John 5:16ff, the Jews persecuted Jesus because he "was doing these things on the Sabbath." Their argument is that Jesus shouldn't be 'working' on the Sabbath.

One of the most important principles of the father/son relationship in Judaism is the principle of imitation. Sons are to imitate their fathers and bring honor to them through their good conduct. It is on this commonly understood basis that Jesus offers a defense of his actions. He defends his working on the Sabbath by appealing to the imitation principle, that he is simply imitating what God is doing, doing good works on his Sabbath.

The Jews claim is: "You are working on the Sabbath, which is not allowed."

Jesus' response is: "In order to be a good son, I am to imitate my father, and since he is working on his Sabbath, that is sufficient to justify my working on the Sabbath."

If Jesus was not appealing to God's working on his Sabbath in order to justify his own working on his Sabbath, then what is he saying?

Both the OT and the NT support the claim that the seventh day, God's Sabbath rest, has an eternal nature. How can the seventh 'day' mean a normal solar day and refer to an eternal period of time? Only if it is used metaphorically as the Framework Interpretation contends.

[Starkman]

Hello Starkman,
You say:
I think I made that point also, (out of Gen 1's order) but I noted that it was the author's intent to do so in order to make a profound theological point.

KOFHY:
Yes, a point is being made. God created the animals, then man. (Gen 1).
Now, Gen 2 is about man looking over all these animals, classifying and naming them.
.
You speculate that:
...Robyn feels the Genesis 2 account supports animals having passed by Adam to see if there was a suited helper, doesn't, in fact have to be a sexual issue, as he stated. However, the obvious would come to the forefront sooner or later: even if dog is man's best friend, the world won't go far without reproduction. This is why I see such a profound meaning behind the animals showing up first in chapter 2, passing by Adam before Eve shows up; to drill home the point that no animal can be the suited helper for Adam.

KOFHY:
If we didn't already believe that the scriptures contain the truth and IS the Truth, the interpretation that bestiality is considered here, that the is a "chicken or the egg" issue, and that a neutral noun implies a help mate that could be gay ... well, the long accepted mrtaphysics is sure a "camel-size" man made-ip interpretation of Genesis 2.

Robyn's careful analysis OUGHT make a re-evaluation of Genesis 2 appropriate to this next generation of educated, informed, geeky net people. But, I am sure this generation, previous that to follow, will strain gnats out of a sensible rational meaning.

Gen. 2:6 But there went up a mist,...

Here, the word mist ought be interpreted to mean: "a forming mental illusion in this species of man"

The verse continues:
"from the earth,"...

Earth is the solid material reality of our existence. It imp,ies that man is observing developing life forms. The mist of the clouded fullness of all God has created is permeating every aspect of the environment as if it had... "watered the whole face of the ground."

Compare this to the verse written concisely as follows:

Gen. 2:6 But there went up a mist, (a forming mental illusion in this species of man), from the (developing life forms of the) earth, and (it permeated every aspect of the environment as if it had) watered the whole face of the ground.

God had formed man, had breatged life into him and now, man "became a living psyke.'"

Gen. 2:7 And the LORD God, (Universe), formed man from the dust (of chemical elements) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living psyke' (Gr.).Hello Kofh2u,

I guess I'd have to ask you this: If I gave you a book or, say, a medical report I wrote or anything else that I composed, would you not be inclinded to read it, keeping in mind my purposes and intent in having written the information? And if you did not know my culture (in order to obtain my meaning from the writing), would you not be obligated to research my culture in order to place my writing in its best possible context? Would you be obligated to never read meaning into what you believe it, or want it, to mean, but to extract only the meaning I intended? And finally, would you not think that to do other than these "oughts" or obligations could effect disastrous results?

Genesis is not difficult to understand, from a grammatical and theological perspective. Yes, there may be debate about some of the details, but the simplicity of the message is clear. (Whether it is literal or not does not affect the outcome of its message.) God created mankind in His image, male and female He created them. He created a bunch of other things, too, like this universe, this planet and all its life forms (the life forms known back then). No animal could be Adam's helpmate, so God created Eve.

Now, to take this creation account, not considering the culturally similar Ancient Near East writings (in order to gain an understanding of both how they wrote back then and what they meant) and interpret the account with a modern meta-transcendental or eastern-mystical view (e.g., your idea that the mist represents "a forming mental illusion in this species of man") is to completely both have missed the account's simple point and to have made it something of your own creation. I've seen this in many of your posts. You create interpretations of a text that aren't even hinted in the slightest; the author's intent wasn't even in the same ball park, or on the same planet, for that matter, as is your interpreation.

I don't mean to be rude at all, here, Kofh2u, not in the least. But if we can't talk with some of the common denominators of language, understood (or at least implemented unawares) by all peoples of all nations of all time, then we cannot talk at all. And I'm just trying to caution you to just take the text for what it says, at least in its primordial meaning. We can work out the details later as we go along. But we will never get anywhere if we do not first allow people to say and mean what they say and mean.

Every day I am challenged to consider what I may have read into God's word rather than having let its own message be read into me. So I speak from personal experience!

Most sincerely, and without meaning to offend,

Starkman

[Starkman]

A while back a poster here, BrianB wrote a paper in which this topic is addressed please consider this from Brain's paper at:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13180
Ah! See, Charleen, this is what I'm into. The theology of the Seventh day is just...well, it's just awsome! I agree very much with Brian's post. I think this is ultimately what the author of Genesis was getting at by the "days" of creation: eventually, they stop, in that God has completed all that is necessary; man can add nothing. He can only rest...in what God has done.

Yeah, that's what I'm talkin' about! (No, it doesn't help develp our conversation about the two accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2, but I get jazzed up when we start taking relationship theology!)

Starkman

[kofh2u]

Hello Starkman,

You wrote:
"I guess I'd have to ask you this: If I gave you a book or, say, a medical report I wrote or anything else that I composed,... would you not be inclinded to read it, keeping in mind my purposes and intent in having written the information? "

KOFHY:
Of course. And, this book, it is supposed to be aboutb the Truth, right?

It is especial a good example that you choose a medical text, for instance. You must admit, the Scriptures concern the matter of Human Behavior, right? Human behavior and its relationship with the world God has created and the other people who are in it.
I read Genesis with this in mind, it is about the Truth and man can not exist everlasting, as a species, without understanding the Truth and conforming to it.

Starkman,:
Genesis is not difficult to understand, from a grammatical and theological perspective. Yes, there may be debate about some of the details, but the simplicity of the message is clear. (Whether it is literal or not does not affect the outcome of its message.)

KOFHY:
Yes, a Hindu would read it literally a find it to be a simple enough tale, very analogous to myths of his own and such.
But, if an educated, science informed, person from, say China, was told that this story was an analogy written for uniformed, illiterate people, way back 3300 years ago, what would he think that analogy concerned, knowing the truth about reality?

For instance, what would he make of reading:
"God created mankind in His image?"

How? In what way? Certainly, not physical images. What say you, doctor.

Here's my take:

Gen. 1:27 So God (The Universal Force) created man (as a conscious mind enabled to image The Universal Reality, abstractly and mathematically), so created God, (the external Universal Force) him; male and female created he them.


Now, Doctor, I understand that you read Genesis from the point of view, unlike a medical book, that it need not make sense about the reality of truth in the real world. You read it with the pre-set idea that whatever it says is simple and, basically, literal, as much as possible. To you, its theology, not reality, not that kind of truth, a higher truth applicable elsewhere?

You continue:
"He created a bunch of other things, too, like this universe, this planet and all its life forms (the life forms known back then)."

KOFHY:
Yes, this is true. In seven distinct durations of time, in the Seven Geological Eras, all has been created.
For the Hindu, the tale is as true as for the China man. But, the Hindu doesn't believe it because it isn't supposed to be truly true, it is an Epic or a myth. The China man does believe that the seven days were the Seven Eras, because he understands that this book is supposed to be true, but written for a more childish ancient audience.

Here's the way the China man sees it:

Gen. 2:4 These are the generations, (the seven (7) Geological Eras) of the heavens and of the earth, (the reality external to our mind) when
they were created, in the day (of the initial Big Bang which transformed absolute Energy into Matter and Time/Space), that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.


Starkman:
No animal could be Adam's helpmate, so God created Eve.

KOFHY:
This is interesting in that oxen, horses, sheep dogs, elephants, etc have always been helpful to us. The implication would seem to mean some other kind of help, beyond physical help.

Or else, it refers to a sexual connotation.

But, if we go with that, the rejection of the animals as the first choice in this matter, bestiality is a problem.
Noting that this is a book about Human Behavior, a third possibility arises! The help might be psychological.
Coupled with the China man's assumption, that Genesis 1 concerns the report of an evolving manifestation of life forms, this would suggest that the psyche was developing. The human mind was deveopling and becoming the seven-fold archetypal manifestation we recognize as the truth about man, today.

Rev. 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars, (the sevenfold
spirit of the psyche: Id, Libido, Ego, Anima, Self, Harmony, Superego):

Dr. Starkman:
Now, to take this creation account, not considering the culturally similar Ancient Near East writings (in order to gain an understanding of both how they wrote back then and what they meant) and interpret the account with a modern meta-transcendental or eastern-mystical view (e.g., your idea that the mist represents "a forming mental illusion in this species of man")...

KOFHY:
Name tagging my response a is a "meta-transcendental or eastern-mystical view" = "Why do you beat your wife," or a way of denying me intelligent and fair intellectual response. The mist I speak of is one which, in the last century, since Freud, pertains to the human mind.

The idea is that a growing subconsciousness, a mist-like awareness, was emerging from the mind- body phenomenon, for the first time in the history of the creation.
We know that man is defined by this, the tool of his mind. By his ability to build an internal model of his environment he has been able to dominate it.
That Genesis would mention this ought not surprise the China man, for the Mind of man is now interacting with nature at every corner of the Globe. Our thoughts affect the environment, spreading an interactive web of fore-thought that proceeds every behavioral activity.
How could theTruth NOT even mention this?

Dr. Starkman
I've seen this in many of your posts. You create interpretations of a text that aren't even hinted in the slightest; the author's intent wasn't even in the same ball park, or on the same planet, for that matter, as is your interpreation.

KOFHY:
You need to give me something as specific as you have been kind enough to do with these verses.

I am certain that "the author's intent" was Truth. In every sense of the word, and not metaphysical or mythopaeic ideas which, though dreamed up ages ago, are just as open to the same comments you level at my own. Some people many centuries ago set doctrines from their interpretation of Genesis, did they not?

What I am asking you to reflect upon is that the "author's" intent was the basis for those ancients who thought they knew that intent. They were sure that there was no mystery about God, none that their philosophy did not take into account.
They read, wrote about, and indoctrinated each generation that the China man's Truth is not the Truth, that scripture MUST be metaphysical, if all the verses and ideas are to be explainable.

Rev. 10:7 But in the days of (Christian Humanitarism) the voice of the seventh angel, (the spirit of human Harmony), when he, (that awakening subconscious apparatus of mind), shall begin to sound (consciously in the thoughts of men), the MYSTERY of God should be finished, as he hath informed his servants the prophets (as recorded in scripture).

Starkman:
I don't mean to be rude at all, here, Kofh2u, not in the least. But if we can't talk with some of the common denominators of language, understood (or at least implemented unawares) by all peoples of all nations of all time, then we cannot talk at all. And I'm just trying to caution you to just take the text for what it says, at least in its primordial meaning. We can work out the details later as we go along. But we will never get anywhere if we do not first allow people to say and mean what they say and mean.

KOFH:
I thank you for the gentlemanly commentary.
Reflecting on what you say, directly above, I want you to know that I am not disparaging the ancient traditional ways of explaining the passages in the Book of Genesis.
How WOULD/COULD the medievil Catholic Church have thought otherwise, but that God's little Eden be the center of His creation?
Those church leaders were supported, as were the pharisees with Jesus, by most of their RCC church members in condemning the audacity of Galilleo. Remember, I too am comparing a reality take against church indoctrinated interpretation with rational ideas which fit analogously.

It is predictable, Human Behavior, to stick blindly to old paradigms, and to rebluff new ones.

For religion, though, those virgin ears have been warned. They are to keep oil in their lamps, to shine light on the Truth, and step out of the Dark Ages.

In this vein, I offer for your criticism this verse:

Rev. 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold (the golden spiritual
insights into the irrepressible idea of Psychic Consciousness emerging
from scripture) tried in the fire (of time), that thou mayest be rich
(in continued leadership); and white raiment (filling blank pages with revised misinterpretations), that thou mayest be clothed (in protection) that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear (or, reappear, such as visited in Geocentricism), and anoint thine eyes (so as to apprise thine thinking) with eyesalve (with secularly acceptable scriptural
confirmations), that thou mayest see (the unsupportability of thy
intuitive irrationalities).

Starkman:
Every day I am challenged to consider what I may have read into God's word...

KOFH:
Then there is hope!
Christ, the Word, comes not for the Saved but for those in our educated society, today, who are denied salvation by the ridicule of Evolutionists, the Science of Empiricism, and the moralizing of the Nicolaitans. Against the truth to be found in the scriptures, these people use the obstancy of Christians who protect misguided and man made interpretations.

Even the Pope has learned the hard lesson from Galilleo. He accepts evolution.

Starkman:
Most sincerely, and without meaning to offend,

KOFHY:
No offense taken.

I have the enviable prespective of enjoying the mythopaeic understandings of scripture appropriate to its time and place in our Western Culture. While, at the same time, I gain insight into the gradually intellectual maturing of Modern Homo sapiens. As our understanding of the world around us has increased, the understanding of scripture has grown and been revised. Look st Marin Luther's rather recent re-evaluatons.

When I read about metaphysical inventions created to satisfy hard to understand ideas in scripture I marvel at both the honest creativity of the theologists and the innocent gulliblity of their audiences, without meaning to offend.

In this, it is exulerating to read and read passages from my Freudian Bible Translation and Interpretation.

I am, often, still somewhat enthralled in realizing how a totally our modern day overview of what we have come to know about our reality here, on earth, fits so thoroughly and neatly into the scriptures we have always believed.

Rev. 5:3 And no man in heaven (in that realm of thought), nor on earth, (by means of some concrete physical effort), neither in the sea (of written records), was able to open the book (the Hebrew scriptures), neither to look thereon.

[Augustine2004]

Charleen, I apologize for taking so long to look at Brian Bucher's article 'Genesis One and Beyond: An Investigation of the Temporal Questions of Creation in the Biblical Texts' http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13180 And I have not yet re-read post #61.

It needs to be noted here that I accept grmorton's interpretation that all Father is doing in the 'Thus said the Lord God ... ' verses is to proclaim or command that things be done. God is not necessarily directly involved in the creation or bringing-forth; in most cases that would be done by the Holy Ghost or would happen naturally.

I do not accept the Framework Interpretation because it is not obvious that the verses have to be interpreted non-literally. Moses did declare that the Lord God brought his people out of Egypt with 'a mighty hand.' Whether God literally had hands like we do or not, we don't really need to know. Obviously the mighty-hand phrase is to be interpreted non-literally anyhow. How do we know that? Because we already have the account of the bringing-out of Moses' people earlier, in which God's hand(s) is(are) not mentioned all throughout.

Nothing precedes the first Chapter of Genesis, obviously. And no later Biblical passage makes it evident that we have to interpret Genesis 1 non-literally, or do we? grmorton has given us an interpretation that makes sense imo in any case. Perhaps not compelling, but nothing impossible or extremely improbable.

Also, a reason for using non-literal phrases is for pithiness, in addition to drama. But, what is there to be encapsulated in the phrase 'Evening passed, and morning came. This was the ... day'? The Day-Age interpretation have been considered, and rejected in favor of the FI, and I concur. Anything else that could be a referent? I can't think of anything like that. Moreover, consider the phrase itself. It's such a long passage, and it does not look pithy. Somewhat dramatic, yes, but not strikingly so.

Edited to add this: Of course the first 3 days have to be handled differently. When I said non-literal, I do not mean a day such as we experience daily. What I have in mind is that there is a non-solar source of light which provides the illumination for the lit portion of the day. The earth is already rotating, so that we do have the normal succession of light followed by partial darkness.

[A Beautiful Truth]

And I have not yet re-read post #61.

It would add to the thread if you did.

I do not accept the Framework Interpretation because it is not obvious that the verses have to be interpreted non-literally.

This is one reason I'd like you to continue on the topic and re-read post #61 because I believe this is a case where we have something obviously non-literal.

grmorton has given us an interpretation that makes sense imo in any case. Perhaps not compelling, but nothing impossible or extremely improbable.

No, not compelling. I believe this topic of the order of Gen. 2 shows that we already have something non-literal. Again, as in my OP, if we allow some of Gen. 2 to be non-literal, what makes us so secure we are to be taking the rest as literal? Just as we traditionally don't believe God created those animals literally from the dust immediately after man, as the text says, so I question whether or not we need to take Adam's immediate creation from the dust and Eve's immediate creation from the rib literally. If one is not literal (animals created immediately from the dust after man), why do we take the other (man created immediately from the dust)? Glenn depends on the literal immediate creation of man from the dust (the dust of a dead homind) and also the literal immediate creation of woman from the man in order to believe the account is "true". I wonder if we need to demand modern science from the text in order for it to be true.

The Day-Age interpretation have been considered, and rejected in favor of the FI, and I concur.

I myself favor a combination with the Analogous Day. I put the plug in for Brian B's handling of the seventh day.

[Abigail]

Charlene, why could God not have made further animals after Adam (Etcetera has one translation saying further). As was pointed out to me by someone whose attention to detail I greatly respect (Jorge), the beasts and birds in Gen 2:19 are formed from the ground and yet in Gen 1:20 it appears the birds are brought forth from the waters. So perhaps God did make more creatures after Adam. It does bare further exploration.

[kofh2u]

....we have something obviously non-literal.

...not compelling. I believe this topic of the order of Gen. 2 shows that we already have something non-literal. Again, as in my OP, if we allow some of Gen. 2 to be non-literal, what makes us so secure we are to be taking the rest as literal? Just as we traditionally don't believe God created those animals literally from the dust immediately after man, as the text says, so I question whether or not we need to take Adam's immediate creation from the dust and Eve's immediate creation from the rib literally. If one is not literal (animals created immediately from the dust after man), why do we take the other (man created immediately from the dust)?

. I wonder if we need to demand modern science from the text in order for it to be true.

I myself favor a combination with the Analogous Day. I put the plug in for Brian B's handling of the seventh day.


When answering you question, literal a little, non-literal, people ought differentiate between Christianity and belief in their particular answer to your question.

Socratism apparently has been banned from Tweb, as you will recall. But, I had asked him ehy he insisted on a literal Genesis when it had no real significance as regards salvation.

He ssid that if he gave an inch on this there would be problems in maintaining the metaphysical arguments to come many other issues.

What do you think about his argument?

[A Beautiful Truth]

Socratism apparently has been banned from Tweb, as you will recall.

Perhaps you mean Socrates?

He ssid that if he gave an inch on this there would be problems in maintaining the metaphysical arguments to come many other issues.

What do you think about his argument?

Nonsense, just as my interpretation of a non-literal Revelation causes no problems. Because the truth of the book of Revelation is not in a literal form does not mean it is not true.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Charlene, why could God not have made further animals after Adam (Etcetera has one translation saying further). As was pointed out to me by someone whose attention to detail I greatly respect (Jorge), the beasts and birds in Gen 2:19 are formed from the ground and yet in Gen 1:20 it appears the birds are brought forth from the waters. So perhaps God did make more creatures after Adam. It does bare further exploration.

Lee Merril asked this one, too, that is why we got on the whole Sabbath rest topic and I referenced BrainB's article. Perhaps you will go back and take a look, starting at post #120, and follow it from there.

[Abigail]

Lee Merril asked this one, too, that is why we got on the whole Sabbath rest topic and I referenced BrainB's article. Perhaps you will go back and take a look, starting at post #120, and follow it from there.Well you havent addressed the difference between Gen 2:19 and Gen1:20. If the birds in 1:20 were brought forth from the water and those in 2:19 were formed from the ground then surely these are not the same events being described and therefore it is a possibility that there was a second creation of animals/birds after Adam.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Well you havent addressed the difference between Gen 2:19 and Gen1:20. If the birds in 1:20 were brought forth from the water and those in 2:19 were formed from the ground then surely these are not the same events being described and therefore it is a possibility that there was a second creation of animals/birds after Adam.

The birds are not mentioned as coming from the waters. "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth..." (vs.20)

And you did not address my issue of God having took His rest from creation after He made man.

[Abigail]

The birds are not mentioned as coming from the waters. "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth..." (vs.20) Well it certainly does not say the birds were formed from the ground so we are even there. However as I see it the argument still falls in favour of a literal interpretation because:

1. if the birds did come from the water - or anything other than ground - then you are still faced with the problem of two seperate events ( I dont know Hebrew so cannot say whether water is or is not implied)

2. If the birds in 1:20 did come from the ground then Etcetera's 'better interpretation' of 'and God further created out of the earth' still reads naturally in the senario of God having already made some of these creatures out of the earth and then after Adam making some more.

To my mind the more difficult deliberation is deciding whether in 2:19 the speaker is talking about (by referring back to) the animals God created before Adam or whether God indeed did create some more animals and birds between Adam and Eve.

And you did not address my issue of God having took His rest from creation after He made man.You have referred us back to chapter one of Genesis and yet I find no word of God resting in chapter 1. All I can find is Genesis 2:2 where God rests on the 7th day. The events we are speaking of all took place on the 6th day. Can you direct me to where it says He rested specifically after making man

[A Beautiful Truth]

Well it certainly does not say the birds were formed from the ground so we are even there.

Nor does it say that birds were formed from the water...

1. if the birds did come from the water - or anything other than ground - then you are still faced with the problem of two seperate events ( I dont know Hebrew so cannot say whether water is or is not implied)

I don't really understand your argument here, Abigail. My argument is that if the creation account of man in Gen. 2 is literal, then we have a contradiction or "problem" as you put it, with concordance with the creation account in chap. 1.

2. If the birds in 1:20 did come from the ground then Etcetera's 'better interpretation' of 'and God further created out of the earth' still reads naturally in the senario of God having already made some of these creatures out of the earth and then after Adam making some more.

Perhaps you may check his post again and reference in context what you think he was saying and repost this argument.

You have referred us back to chapter one of Genesis and yet I find no word of God resting in chapter 1. All I can find is Genesis 2:2 where God rests on the 7th day. The events we are speaking of all took place on the 6th day. Can you direct me to where it says He rested specifically after making man

Abigail, after God made man, His works (Heavens and earth and all their host)were completed. Because this is Gen. 2:1 does no harm to my argument. If God made animals again after He made man, then His creative work of the heavens and the earth and all their hosts were not completed after He made man and the scripture would then contradicts itself. I do not believe the scripture contradicts itself, do you?

[Abigail]

Nor does it say that birds were formed from the water...



Since the text does not say the birds came from the water. I don't really understand your argument here, Abigail. The point is that you are trying to use 2:19 as evidence that Genesis 2 cannot possibly be literal and your claim is that this in turn casts doubt on the literalness on Gen 1 (though I am not sure that this would automatically follow in any case). I was trying to show you that your point is weak.
Your argument, as I understood it, was that Gen 2:19 had creation of animals and birds after Adam thus destroying the chronological sequencing as depicted in Gen 1, and you appealed to Etceteras quotes of *better texts* as evidence that the reading in Genesis 2:19 could not be the past tense * had formed * as argued by YEC's such as Brett and myself.

My argument was that even if Etcetera is right about the text being rendered 'And God further created out of the earth...' the 'further created out of the earth' does not necessarily imply that Gen 2 is saying man was created and then only afterward did God create the animals/birds, but rather Gen 2 could be saying that after Adam and before Eve, God created more animals/birds. If all the animals and birds created before Adam were formed out the ground then it would be natural for the writer to report when more were being made, that God 'further created out of the earth'. Thus no destruction of chronology

A possible objection may be that it does not say the birds in Gen 1:20 were made from the earth:
In Gen 1:20-21, it talks of the fish and birds being created. Parallel this to Gen 1:24-25 and does it maybe imply that the things in 1:20-21 were brought forth from the water as the ones in 1:24-25 were brought forth from the earth. If it perhaps does (??), then it would not be a problem as the fact that the birds in 2:19 are formed from ground would then imply a different event in any case ie a 'further' creation of *more* animals/birds between Adam and Eve. Thus no destruction of chronology.

As I have said I am not convinced that Genesis 2:19 cannot be read *had formed* but these points were to counter you on your own grounds that it could not.


Perhaps you may check his post again and reference in context what you think he was saying and repost this argument. Addressed above


Abigail, after God made man, His works (Heavens and earth and all their host)were completed. Because this is Gen. 2:1 does no harm to my argument. If God made animals again after He made man, then His creative work of the heavens and the earth and all their hosts were not completed after He made man and the scripture would then contradicts itself. I do not believe the scripture contradicts itself, do you? No God rested on the 7th day and what I have described is all on the 6th day so I see no obstacle here. Also remember Eve was created last however you look at the senarios so I really dont think you have an argument. Eve is part of humanity. Once she was made then it was completed and God rested.

[kofh2u]

Certainly, there is nothing wrong in devrlopong any idea to get around inconsistencies such as we discuss here.
It is a validation of our faith and our denominational Faith.

We know, we are sure, we believe that Genesis 1 and 2 reports the truth.

I am sure that Jesus had positive reinforcement in mind himself. Certainly, the general scriptural understandings of 32AD were as divided and diverse as we see in Judaism today.

A bruised reed (of scriptural interpretion) shall he not
break, and smoking flax (of misguided dogma) shall he not quench, till (after) he send forth (good) judgment unto victory (in ecumenical amalgamation).
Matt. 12:20


We need only remind ourselves that, just @ century ago, Christians responded as well as could be have been expected in the absence of science findings w take for granted now.

Before Darwin, before Freud, and before radio-active carbon dating, Atheists mocked believers too.
Anti-christ ideas that pretend to be armed with science arguments now availble to them find that the old answers testify to an unswerving defense of the Word. And now, armed with the same science as detractors, Christians can confirm the Truth in the words of science itself. Those who circumvent the easy route of Theistic Evolution or Analogous Creationism, and perfer to defend the generation just past, are a welcome complement to the new teachings which will replace that metaphysics of the 18th century.

We have them, the bible scoffers, coming and going, going forward into the future.

[Augustine2004]

Charleen, surely many animals were not born until after Adam's creation, just as many animals were born after your birth. The Bible would naturally sum up everything in Gen 2:19 rather tersely by saying that God created every animal, even though some of them were born after Adam's creation. Maybe many animals died before Adam's creation, so God did not literally bring every animal to Adam. Also, your beloved Fido could not have been in the parade either.

[A Beautiful Truth]

The point is that you are trying to use 2:19 as evidence that Genesis 2 cannot possibly be literal and your claim is that this in turn casts doubt on the literalness on Gen 1 (though I am not sure that this would automatically follow in any case). I was trying to show you that your point is weak.
Your argument, as I understood it, was that Gen 2:19 had creation of animals and birds after Adam thus destroying the chronological sequencing as depicted in Gen 1, and you appealed to Etceteras quotes of *better texts* as evidence that the reading in Genesis 2:19 could not be the past tense * had formed * as argued by YEC's such as Brett and myself.

Actually, it was not of *better texts* at all, but of the *reason* the order was put as it was.

but rather Gen 2 could be saying that after Adam and before Eve, God created more animals/birds.

Again, the sequence is off in comparison.

If all the animals and birds created before Adam were formed out the ground then it would be natural for the writer to report when more were being made, that God 'further created out of the earth'. Thus no destruction of chronology

God created birds on day five, animals on day six, before man, according to the first creation account.

A possible objection may be that it does not say the birds in Gen 1:20 were made from the earth:

What does it really matter anyhow, God did it. We can't extrapolate the how, that is impossible and not the purpose of the text. What is important is who. But you cannot have them being made from the water, that would be read in and rather illogical since most birds reside on the land.

In Gen 1:20-21, it talks of the fish and birds being created. Parallel this to Gen 1:24-25 and does it maybe imply that the things in 1:20-21 were brought forth from the water as the ones in 1:24-25 were brought forth from the earth. If it perhaps does (??), then it would not be a problem as the fact that the birds in 2:19 are formed from ground would then imply a different event in any case ie a 'further' creation of *more* animals/birds between Adam and Eve. Thus no destruction of chronology.

Any further creation would go against the order in the first account. If you don't really care or don't really think the order of Gen. 1 is literal either than that is a different argument, but one you are forced to make if you take this route.

As I have said I am not convinced that Genesis 2:19 cannot be read *had formed* but these points were to counter you on your own grounds that it could not.

The flow of the text suggests they were made immediate there and then *because* man was alone. That is the simple, plain, reading of the text.

No God rested on the 7th day and what I have described is all on the 6th day so I see no obstacle here. Also remember Eve was created last however you look at the senarios so I really dont think you have an argument. Eve is part of humanity. Once she was made then it was completed and God rested.

Indeed. My main point should have remained on the order presented in Gen. one.

[Abigail]

Actually, it was not of *better texts* at all, but of the *reason* the order was put as it was. well whatever your reasons were for insisting that *had* to be the reading, I have answered you assuming that reading (even though in reality I am not convinced that can be the only reading)



Again, the sequence is off in comparison. Only in your own mind Charlene. YEC interpretations are not as brittle as you assume.


God created birds on day five, animals on day six, before man, according to the first creation account.Well exactly Charlene and this is another reason to think that God did create more animals/birds after Adam and before Eve on day 6 (assuming of course that we have to understand Gen 2:19 as you insist ie 'God further created from the earth' and not 'had formed' as in referring to past deeds)



What does it really matter anyhow, God did it. We can't extrapolate the how, that is impossible and not the purpose of the text. What is important is who. I really dont know how to take this comment, since being a big bang believer you clearly believe we can know how God did it all and this has been one of your arguments all along, and your use of science to interpret the text is evidence of this But you cannot have them being made from the water, that would be read in and rather illogical since most birds reside on the land. I made it clear it was a hypothetical to show that whichever the case when assuming your reading a literal interpretation was still fully feasible. In anycase IF the 5th day birds were somehow brought forth from the water and lived on land then why is that so impossible?

Any further creation would go against the order in the first account. If you don't really care or don't really think the order of Gen. 1 is literal either than that is a different argument, but one you are forced to make if you take this route.It does not go against Genesis 1. You go to the supermarket and come out having bought some apples and then you decide you need more and go back in and get more. Now I come along and ask you what fruit you bought that day do you tell me apples and apples or do you just tell me apples. As I said before you are insisting YEC thinking has to follow some rigid and double starched strawman you have in your own mind or be thrown in the bin and this is absurd.


The flow of the text suggests they were made immediate there and then *because* man was alone. That is the simple, plain, reading of the text. Charlene if there is an odd number of people in a room can everyone pairs off into couples? No because one person will find themself *alone* after the pairing is done. Rough analogy I know, but Adam could well have been alone in this sense ie he was alone because he had no mate and everyone else had a mate or a clique.


Indeed. My main point should have remained on the order presented in Gen. one.No the truth is you didnt really have a point as you were trying to make out we were changing this and yet on close reflection it was shown we were not.

[A Beautiful Truth]

well whatever your reasons were for insisting that *had* to be the reading, I have answered you assuming that reading (even though in reality I am not convinced that can be the only reading)

Go back and address his points, if you will.


Well exactly Charlene and this is another reason to think that God did create more animals/birds after Adam and before Eve on day 6 (assuming of course that we have to understand Gen 2:19 as you insist ie 'God further created from the earth' and not 'had formed' as in referring to past deeds)

So you believe in over lapping days now? That seems to be contrary to typical YEC interpretation.

I really dont know how to take this comment, since being a big bang believer you clearly believe we can know how God did it all

I do not believe we have full knowledge of how. The text certainly does not give it, and we rely on our scientific understanding to understand these things. This is a process and is nowhere complete, but we realize God has given us liberty to investigate His works to discover these things. The Bible does not fully give us the how, God gives us the wonderful challenge of discovering such things.


In anycase IF the 5th day birds were somehow brought forth from the water and lived on land then why is that so impossible?

Doesn't really matter to me, I don't think that is the point of the text. What is the point is that they were created on day five and if you have them created on day six, after man, in addition to day five, then you have over-lapping days, something you ought to be doing the back stroke to avoid since your YEC friends all criticize the day agers who accept over-lapping days.

As I said before you are insisting YEC thinking has to follow some rigid and double starched strawman you have in your own mind or be thrown in the bin and this is absurd.

Hey, if you are fine with over lapping days, fine, but I think your AIG friends might disown you. *sarcasm*


Charlene if there is an odd number of people in a room can everyone pairs off into couples? No because one person will find themself *alone* after the pairing is done. Rough analogy I know, but Adam could well have been alone in this sense ie he was alone because he had no mate and everyone else had a mate or a clique.

You distance yourself from the plain, straightforward meaning of the text. All this contrivance to make it fit your pre disposed interpretation instead of taking it as it is simply written.


No the truth is you didnt really have a point as you were trying to make out we were changing this and yet on close reflection it was shown we were not.

And you choose to be so ungracious when I realize that particular point was invalid? I think it a good practice to try to see where I am wrong and work to improve it. This is one reason I am not YEC. I actually believe I can be wrong in my arguments and I accept when I have bee righted. How totally ungracious of you to insult me after I acknowledged my error.

[Abigail]

Go back and address his points, if you will. Charlene, I have addressed his comments, maybe not as you would like but I have addressed them nontheless. Perhaps you should expound on exactly what you think he wrote as perhaps we are talking past one another.




So you believe in over lapping days now? That seems to be contrary to typical YEC interpretation. Just how you arrive at this conclusion is beyond my understanding. Just to clarify. I still hold that Genesis 2:19 should be read "had formed". However if I were shown to be wrong and the reading was "God further created from the earth" I do not believe this would be a problem. All it would mean is that between Adam and Eve on day 6 God created some more animals and birds. Genesis 1 is a summary and gives the overview of when and where God first created the different things. If God created more birds on day 6 then perhaps they were not mentioned on day 6 in Gen1 because they were already mentioned on day 5.



I do not believe we have full knowledge of how. The text certainly does not give it, and we rely on our scientific understanding to understand these things. This is a process and is nowhere complete, but we realize God has given us liberty to investigate His works to discover these things. The Bible does not fully give us the how, God gives us the wonderful challenge of discovering such things. Charlene, the problem I see here is that if we can use science to show us the correct interpretation of the Bible then until we have perfect and accurate understanding of the physical universe/world etc we can never have an accurate understanding of the Bible. But in Proverbs 3:5 it says "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding". So it is my belief that using the Bible can guide us to a correct interpretation of physical world as the Bible is already perfect - it is the perfect Word of God.




Doesn't really matter to me, I don't think that is the point of the text. What is the point is that they were created on day five and if you have them created on day six, after man, in addition to day five, then you have over-lapping days, something you ought to be doing the back stroke to avoid since your YEC friends all criticize the day agers who accept over-lapping days.Addressed above ie Genesis 1 gives summary of when everything was first created. By the way Charlene, I hope you are not suggesting I should seek the approval of men :wink:



Hey, if you are fine with over lapping days, fine, but I think your AIG friends might disown you. *sarcasm* :ahem:




You distance yourself from the plain, straightforward meaning of the text. All this contrivance to make it fit your pre disposed interpretation instead of taking it as it is simply written. Charlene your petticoat is showing :teeth:




And you choose to be so ungracious when I realize that particular point was invalid? I think it a good practice to try to see where I am wrong and work to improve it. This is one reason I am not YEC. I actually believe I can be wrong in my arguments and I accept when I have bee righted. How totally ungracious of you to insult me after I acknowledged my error. Fair comment and I apologise :flowers:

[A Beautiful Truth]

Charlene, I have addressed his comments, maybe not as you would like but I have addressed them nontheless. Perhaps you should expound on exactly what you think he wrote as perhaps we are talking past one another.

Here, (This is at least the third time I've reposted his argument in this thread...)

this is from the original post #61 and also some comments I gave in post #115 when I reposted it there.

Rather, how about the terms that are used like "I will make him a helper and then directly afterwards we have "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man...". Why did He make them and bring them to the man? I believe the honest interpretation is recognizing this as a cause/effect relationship which does imply chrononlogy. If it is to be taken literaly, we have a contradiction with chapter one, the reason why you and Brett fight the obvious order in chapter two.

I would really like it if you could go back and critique Etcetera's post #61. He really laid out a good argument as to why the order is put as it is. Please look it over and tell us what you think about his argument. I'll go ahead and repost his points and my previous comments. Perhaps you will look it over and respond.

The answer, of course, is that naming the animals has everything to do with the finding of a mate for Adam.

In the ANE, a name is not just an identifier to keep siblings straight. It is seen as the embodiment either of what that person is or represents or of the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the person doing the naming. Names were a very big deal in the Old Testament (and in the New, for that matter).

The connection between naming and finding a mate is made explicit in Genesis 2.20:

The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the heavens, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper meet for him.

It is the name given to each animal that would let God know (who is waiting to see what he would call them in 2.19; anthropomorphism in action) that none of them was suitable as a mate for Adam. Apparently he called none of them mate, or suitable-for-me, or so forth. None was suitable as a mate, because Adam gave none of them a name leading to that conclusion. So God gives him a mate from his own flesh...

...Both of these translations of the original Hebrew appear to understand Genesis 2.19-20 as part of the sequence of events of 2.18-25, not as a flashback to some time beforehand. The ancient translations ought to at least be factored into the equation.

We have a cause and effect relationship going on here. Man was alone so God made animals. Why did God make animals? Because man was alone. When you say something to the contrary, you adjust the order to make it say something it does not. I've addressed this with Brett and Augustine 2004, perhaps you will go back and take a look.

I wrote further:
Bold mine. Genesis chap. 2 gives an order here. Man was alone, God made animals, animals were not suitable, God made Eve. If this sequence is to be taken literal, you have a contradiction with Gen. one. You are saying that the Bible is not really saying that God made animals from the dust and brought them to the man who was at that time alone.

If the text said what you are pushing, the sequence would look more like this:

vs. 19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

vs. 20 And man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.

vs.18 Then the Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

vs.21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs...

But the order is inspired as it is, Brett, [Augustine 2004] [..and now, Abigail]not as we try to make it fit with our expectations.

The text continues to be abused by those who demand of it what was never intended. We miss so much when we make it fit our interpretation.

In case you were wondering how they responded, they never did.

I still hold that Genesis 2:19 should be read "had formed".

If you say God created them before Adam, then Adam was not "alone", was he? The plain understanding given is that animals were created because man was alone. Don't mess with the order, you do harm to the text's meaning when you do that. I like Etcetera's post for this, I think he explains well the reasoning.

However if I were shown to be wrong and the reading was "God further created from the earth" I do not believe this would be a problem. All it would mean is that between Adam and Eve on day 6 God created some more animals and birds.

And since birds are created on day five, you would be calling for overlapping days. Most YEC want to avoid overlapping days. They say day agers are compromisers because they beleive that God created plant life on day three, but that He kept creating plants on days four, five, and six. So you also have overlapping days if you say God created birds on days five and six.

If God created more birds on day 6 then perhaps they were not mentioned on day 6 in Gen1 because they were already mentioned on day 5.

This is demanded if you interpret Gen. 2 as you do. But, again, to have birds on both days five and six requires belief that God did not finish his work on day five when there was evening and morning, day five. That whole evening morning phrase does not mean a true beginning and ending to His activities on that day if you go for overlapping days. If God created birds on both days, then you MUST accept overlapping days.

Personally, I have no problem with overlapping creative days, but I know you do if you are true to strict YEC interpretation who criticize the day agers for the VERY SAME THING!

Charlene, the problem I see here is that if we can use science to show us the correct interpretation of the Bible then until we have perfect and accurate understanding of the physical universe/world etc we can never have an accurate understanding of the Bible.

Does not follow. Because science can help us with little unmeaningful things like geocentrism as opposed to heliocentrism, does not mean it can inform us of spiritual aspects of the faith. Here, science is totally inept. That is fine. This is what is important in life, not natural things so much.

This especially does not follow, "until we have perfect and accurate understanding of the physical universe/world etc we can never have an accurate understanding of the Bible." Since I don't believe the Bible is meant to be a science text book, I do not agree with your statement. The Bible is infallible in all that it addresses. I don't believe it addresses every detail in how He made the stars, how He made the birds, how He made humans. He says nothing of the functions of the brain, nothing of the fundamental forces of nature, nothing of quantum mechanics--he says nothing. Are you saying that we can never have a full understanding of the Bible until we have a full understanding of the physical properties of the universe? No, it is not so that, "until we have perfect and accurate understanding of the physical universe/world etc we can never have an accurate understanding of the Bible."

But in Proverbs 3:5 it says "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding". So it is my belief that using the Bible can guide us to a correct interpretation of physical world as the Bible is already perfect - it is the perfect Word of God.

I, too, believe it is perfect. I do not believe, however, that the Bible can guide us to a correct interpretation of *ALL* aspects of the physical world, simply because it does not address *ALL* aspects of the physical world. If the purpose of the Bible was to address modern science, then I know that it would give us a correct interpretation. Our argument is, really, then of the purpose of the text--Is it the purpose to be scientific? I don't think so, though the YEC and even the OEC apparently do. I do not.

Addressed above ie Genesis 1 gives summary of when everything was first created.

Okay, this is the same argument in favor of overlapping days...

By the way Charlene, I hope you are not suggesting I should seek the approval of men :wink:

No, indeed. It is just that in the past you have stayed within the "party lines" of strict YEC. If you can think for yourself, more power to you, and I commend you for that!

Fair comment and I apologise :flowers:

I accept :smile:

[Augustine2004]

To show you that I do understand, here's the timeline that I understand you are upholding:
God made man.
Adam feels lonely.
God made animals and brought them to Adam to see how he would react.
Adam named them.
Adam did not give any of the animals a name that would reflect that he felt he has found a mate suitable for him.
God made Eve.

Apparently you assumed that no animal were ever born in the interval between Adam's creation and Eve's creation, and if you did assume that some animals were born in that interval, then those births were not included in Genesis 2:19.

Those assumptions would knock out Abby's interpretation, all right, but why should we make them?

[Abigail]

We have a cause and effect relationship going on here. Man was alone so God made animals. Why did God make animals? Because man was alone. When you say something to the contrary, you adjust the order to make it say something it does not. I've addressed this with Brett and Augustine 2004, perhaps you will go back and take a look. Ok Charlene I think I see where our breakdown of communication is. If you notice in Gen 2:8 it say that God planted a garden and there He placed Adam. Now that is the context of the alone. Adam was *alone* in *the garden*, but also more importantly alone in that he didn't have a helper to be with him in the garden. So God made those futher animals and birds and brought them to Adam to be named and then when these were not found to be suitable for Adam He made Eve. Of course all this was on the 6th day.



And since birds are created on day five, you would be calling for overlapping days. Most YEC want to avoid overlapping days. Charlene it may surprise you but I know very few YEC's, in fact my YEC exposure is mainly on TWeb - that is one of the main reasons I come here.
They say day agers are compromisers because they beleive that God created plant life on day three, but that He kept creating plants on days four, five, and six. So you also have overlapping days if you say God created birds on days five and six. Well, perhaps it boils down to what you have scriptural mandate to claim ie if the Bible is silent then we dont really have authority to say. However if Genesis 2:19 is talking about a further creation of animals /birds on day 6 then it is a clear statement.
This is demanded if you interpret Gen. 2 as you do. No I think it is perfectly reasonable if Genesis 1 is just meant to be a summary of the main points. Repeats would not be mentioned as it is detail and not strictly a novel creation. But, again, to have birds on both days five and six requires belief that God did not finish his work on day five when there was evening and morning, day five. Well, I must say I think you are putting constraints on the text which I do not see. God only talks of finishing His creation after 'evening and morning' on the 6th day. What we are told is that the creation on each day was 'good' and we are told what he made that day. That whole evening morning phrase does not mean a true beginning and ending to His activities on that day if you go for overlapping days. If God created birds on both days, then you MUST accept overlapping days. The morning and evening thing is a measure of time ie it marked the start and finish parameters of the day. A day was not defined by a completed task. God may have completed and finished certain of his creative modules on each day but if He chose to create some more of the same on another day it would not affect the length of the day or the meaning of morning and evening. To be more clear I do not believe the work done in the day and the length of the day have any relation. If it did then a day woulds have a different meaning to everyone.

Personally, I have no problem with overlapping creative days, but I know you do if you are true to strict YEC interpretation who criticize the day agers for the VERY SAME THING! I think I have explained this but just to labour my point. A DAY CANNOT OVERLAP CHARLENE, TIME RUNS IN A STRAIGHT LINE :eek: What we understand by a day is a measure of time, that is what defines a day and not what we have done in the day.



Does not follow. Because science can help us with little unmeaningful things like geocentrism as opposed to heliocentrism, does not mean it can inform us of spiritual aspects of the faith. Actually Charlene, I started a thread yesterday asking for all the allegedly geocentric supportive scriptures but had no takers. I would have been interested to see what the hoo hah was about. As I understand it the problem with the church was that they insisted on geocentrism because they were following the science of the day and then when it ultimately turned out it was wrong they had egg on their faces. I repeat geocentrism was not accepted because people were reading their Bibles! Now apply that to evolution. Do people accept evolution because they read it in the scriptures or do they wangle the scriptures into supporting that view because they believe the science of the day. I would rather believe what I believe because I have read the Bible. I may still be wrong in some of my interpretations but I think my margin for shooting off on tangents is a lot less than if I am going off on rabbit trails pointed to be the science of the day.

This especially does not follow, "until we have perfect and accurate understanding of the physical universe/world etc we can never have an accurate understanding of the Bible." Since I don't believe the Bible is meant to be a science text book, I do not agree with your statement. The Bible is infallible in all that it addresses. I don't believe it addresses every detail in how He made the stars, how He made the birds, how He made humans. He says nothing of the functions of the brain, nothing of the fundamental forces of nature, nothing of quantum mechanics--he says nothing. Bit of a fudge here from you IMO Charlene because the whole reason we are having this conversation about Genesis is because you believe the universe was formed in a certain way and what we see about us occured in a certain way.



I, too, believe it is perfect. I do not believe, however, that the Bible can guide us to a correct interpretation of *ALL* aspects of the physical world, simply because it does not address *ALL* aspects of the physical world. If the purpose of the Bible was to address modern science, then I know that it would give us a correct interpretation. Our argument is, really, then of the purpose of the text--Is it the purpose to be scientific? I don't think so, though the YEC and even the OEC apparently do. I do not.I thought you were OEC?



Okay, this is the same argument in favor of overlapping days...I hope I have made it clear how it is a physical impossibility for a YEC to believe in overlapping days.



No, indeed. It is just that in the past you have stayed within the "party lines" of strict YEC. Now I think you must be mixing the YEC's up with the TE's :wink:

[Abigail]

To show you that I do understand, here's the timeline that I understand you are upholding:
God made man.
Adam feels lonely.
God made animals and brought them to Adam to see how he would react.
Adam named them.
Adam did not give any of the animals a name that would reflect that he felt he has found a mate suitable for him.
God made Eve.

Apparently you assumed that no animal were ever born in the interval between Adam's creation and Eve's creation, and if you did assume that some animals were born in that interval, then those births were not included in Genesis 2:19. We are talking about day six...who of the birds and animals gives birth in a day!!

Those assumptions would knock out Abby's interpretation, all right, but why should we make them?Not so fast buster :bonk: In anycase, the helper had to have a certain qualification in that it/she needed to be suitable for the garden as well as Adam, so perhaps the first round of animals/ birds were never in the running.

[A Beautiful Truth]

To show you that I do understand, here's the timeline that I understand you are upholding:
God made man.
Adam feels lonely.
God made animals and brought them to Adam to see how he would react.
Adam named them.
Adam did not give any of the animals a name that would reflect that he felt he has found a mate suitable for him.
God made Eve.

Apparently you assumed that no animal were ever born in the interval between Adam's creation and Eve's creation,

Please, this is not what I am saying. Who said anything about animals being born? I am limited to the text which says immediately from the dust God made these birds and animals.

Those assumptions would knock out Abby's interpretation, all right, but why should we make them?

You are stuck with a contradiction if you believe the account to be literal, period.

[A Beautiful Truth]

So God made those futher animals and birds and brought them to Adam to be named and then when these were not found to be suitable for Adam He made Eve. Of course all this was on the 6th day.

Two things:

First, the further is completely read into the text.

Second, if you have birds further being made on day six, as you say, then this is clear overlapping creative activity from day five which means the there was no true end to the creative activity on day five and God was still creating things from day five on day six which cuts into a strict literal interpretation.

However if Genesis 2:19 is talking about a further creation of animals /birds on day 6 then it is a clear statement.

Do you believe it to be a clear statement?

No I think it is perfectly reasonable if Genesis 1 is just meant to be a summary of the main points. Repeats would not be mentioned as it is detail and not strictly a novel creation.

Fine by me. Try arguing that with hard core AiG fans, though. Just be tough-skinned and never mind the insults, they just don't understand like you and I.

God only talks of finishing His creation after 'evening and morning' on the 6th day.

Yes but each day ends, does it not? You make this to be not so literal when you say God *did not really* finish the activities on day five on day five.

What we are told is that the creation on each day was 'good' and we are told what he made that day. The morning and evening thing is a measure of time ie it marked the start and finish parameters of the day.

Most YEC's argue that it means God finished day five tasks on day five. They believe that is the plain, straightforward meaning of the text.

God may have completed and finished certain of his creative modules on each day but if He chose to create some more of the same on another day it would not affect the length of the day or the meaning of morning and evening.

No, it would not affect the length of the day, but it would affect the typical YEC understanding of "evening and morning". I think most YEC want the most literal understanding of the text, perhaps such things are not as important to you. Fine by me, I have begun to think it not literal, either.

To be more clear I do not believe the work done in the day and the length of the day have any relation. If it did then a day woulds have a different meaning to everyone.

Yes, lets keep them seperate. What is done in a day (in which the activities, you say, is not limited to that particular day) and how long the day is (this is totally irrelevant to our argument here).

I think I have explained this but just to labour my point. A DAY CANNOT OVERLAP CHARLENE, TIME RUNS IN A STRAIGHT LINE

If you don't believe that God finished the work He began in each day the activity is mentioned, then you don't believe that the activities were literally done in each of the days. When you allow some of the activities to "bleed over" into other days, then you have foregone the literalness that the typical YEC defends. I just want you to know what you are giving up by going this route. Don't let a "compromiser" like me influence you without realizing the full affect of your thinking. I do not "hold" you to this as I am sure you are just exploring your options.


Actually Charlene, I started a thread yesterday asking for all the allegedly geocentric supportive scriptures but had no takers.

I did not see your thread. But this has been brought up numerous times with many examples. Brett and Lei Lani and I actually had a rather long discourse on the topic a while back. I thought you were there, too.

I repeat geocentrism was not accepted because people were reading their Bibles!

So, you would have knew all along that it was really heliocentric, right?

I would rather believe what I believe because I have read the Bible. I may still be wrong in some of my interpretations but I think my margin for shooting off on tangents is a lot less than if I am going off on rabbit trails pointed to be the science of the day.

I would rather believe the Bible, too. I just want to be sure that I am not reading into it more than what it is saying, however.

I thought you were OEC?

I am currently "agnostic" concerning Genesis. I don't know the best interpretation, one reason I am here to test ideas against those who may have some knoweldge concerning these things.

I hope I have made it clear how it is a physical impossibility for a YEC to believe in overlapping days.

I think you are trying real hard, Abigail, and I am happy for the effort, but....you still have to address what believing this way implies (namely the non-literal completion of the activities in each day)

[kofh2u]

Abigail:
We are talking about day six...who of the birds and animals gives birth in a day!!

KOFHY:
So much for the YEC point of view on this order.

Abigail:
Not so fast buster :bonk: In anycase, the helper had to have a certain qualification in that it/she needed to be suitable for the garden as well as Adam,

KOFHY:
Exactly!
These animals were ape-like ones. The one Adammwas going to hook up with had to be mentally advanced ans suitable in that sense:

Gen. 4:1 And Adam (Ramaphitecus Man) knew Eve (mother of all hominoids) his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain (Ardipithecus ramidus), and said, I have gotten a man, (another hominoid), from the LORD.

Gen. 4:2 And she again bare his brother, (Lucy), Abel
(Australopithecus afarensis). And Abel (was carnivorous,) was a keeper of sheep, but Cain (a vegeterian,) was a tiller of the ground.


Abigail:
...so perhaps the first round of animals/ birds were never in the running.

KOFHY:
Or, God brought these dpecial types of animals, various species of apes, and just as in the days of Noah, they were entering into the daughgers of man:

Gen. 6:1 And it came to pass, when men, (Methusael Early Homo erectus), began to multiply on the face of the earth (around the end of the Pilocene Age in the Quaternary Period of the Cenozoic Era), and (Lamechian Homo antecessorian) daughters were born unto them,

Gen. 6:2 That the sons of God, (Methuselahian Modern Homo erectus), saw the daughters of men, (Methusaelian Homo antecessors), that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

[Abigail]

Two things:

First, the further is completely read into the text. No Charlene not according to Etcetera, and you were insisting we deal with what he said ie 'and God further created out of the earth' and that is what I have done to show you that even if Etcetera were proved right it would not destroy a literal interpretation.

Second, if you have birds further being made on day six, as you say, then this is clear overlapping creative activity from day five which means the there was no true end to the creative activity on day five and God was still creating things from day five on day six which cuts into a strict literal interpretation. I dont know why you insist on this. Where does it say that 'on this day these had to be created and not again on any other' If anything I see the emphasis on day 5 being 'water' and day 6 being 'ground' The different creations on those days are different because of the nature of their environments ie fish for sea and animals ground. Birds are different in that they fly above both water and gound. So maybe God finished water things on day 5 and ground things on day 6



Do you believe it to be a clear statement? No I havent decided fully what I believe on this issue. Etcetera came with his reading and seems to feel that is the way it should be read. I havent looked into his claims other than hypothetically showing you that even if it was as Etc says it would not cause me to abandon a fully literal Genesis. I would really like to know if there is any significance in the word 'formed' being used there in 2:19. Hey I wish I knew Hebrew



Fine by me. Try arguing that with hard core AiG fans, though. Just be tough-skinned and never mind the insults, they just don't understand like you and I.People will always have minor differences, however I have more in common with AiG than say someone like you as both AiG and me hold to a literal Genesis



Yes but each day ends, does it not? You make this to be not so literal when you say God *did not really* finish the activities on day five on day five. But this objection fails if God had another module in mind ie on day 5 I will create water things



Most YEC's argue that it means God finished day five tasks on day five. They believe that is the plain, straightforward meaning of the text.Well they are probably on to something there as I am sure God had an organized plan and finished all he had planned for day 5 on day 5, I just dont think if He formed further birds are formed on day 6 that you can say it has destroyed the meaning because maybe there is something else that makes day 5 novel. I would like love to know why 'formed' is used in 2:19



No, it would not affect the length of the day, but it would affect the typical YEC understanding of "evening and morning". I think most YEC want the most literal understanding of the text, perhaps such things are not as important to you. Fine by me, I have begun to think it not literal, either. How does it affect the understanding of evening and morning. God only finished his creation 'by the 7th day' so I do not think we can say too much about what had to be finished and when during the week. If you finish what you set out to do then you are finished as defined by what you set out to do. Also Charlene, not to insult you, but sometimes what you seem to think is typical YEC understanding and what actually is are two different things.



Yes, lets keep them seperate. What is done in a day (in which the activities, you say, is not limited to that particular day) and how long the day is (this is totally irrelevant to our argument here). :ahem: We have birds on two days (in this hypothetical view) and birds are special in that they can travel over ground or water. Also as I have said (when I mentioned water/ground) perhaps God's day related emphasis had a theme we have just not descerned.



If you don't believe that God finished the work He began in each day the activity is mentioned, then you don't believe that the activities were literally done in each of the days. Charlene this is totally illogical. How do you arrive at such a bizarre conclusion. I believe God finished all the work he planned to do each day on the day he did it. If he did make a few more animals/birds between A+E then that was in His plan for day 6, and that would have been done on day 6. When you allow some of the activities to "bleed over" into other days, then you have foregone the literalness that the typical YEC defends.Something is literal if it physically actually happened as reported. How can it become unliteral if it is done twice - I have had two kids does that mean I didnt literally have any kids. I just want you to know what you are giving up by going this route. Don't let a "compromiser" like me influence you without realizing the full affect of your thinking. I do not "hold" you to this as I am sure you are just exploring your options. Dont flatter yourself Charlene :ahem:




I did not see your thread. But this has been brought up numerous times with many examples. Brett and Lei Lani and I actually had a rather long discourse on the topic a while back. I thought you were there, too.I did see that thread but what I want to do is see those scriptures and see for myself what was interpreted as supporting geocentism



So, you would have knew all along that it was really heliocentric, right? No I havent seen anything specifically heliocentric (not that I have looked) but hopefully I would have been able to say 'nuh uh dont go along with these guys because these scriptures are inconclusive on a geocentric position'



I would rather believe the Bible, too. I just want to be sure that I am not reading into it more than what it is saying, however. yes, best to consider prayerfully




I think you are trying real hard, Abigail, and I am happy for the effort, but....you still have to address what believing this way implies (namely the non-literal completion of the activities in each day) I think I addressed this above. If God finished what He planned to do on a day then His work for that day was literally finished

[Starkman]

Hey Charlene,

Say, in regard to Genesis 2:18-19a Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens . . . . (ESV), are you completely ruling out any possibility that the reading is not chronological? Do you think it's possible that the author is conveying, as much Jewish writing is purported to do, a simple statement about Adam being without a helpmate--animals don't cut it? In other words, could not the use of the word, "Then" in the opening clause of verse 18 merely be a continuing of the generalities and not a statement of order? Yeah, we today read it as if it's chronological, but I'm wondering if some research would show that this isn't necessarily Hebrew thinking? I'm not sure, to tell you the truth, but I am of the understanding that the Hebrew movement in much writing is not styled with chronology, but with a point to be made, sometimes out-right contradicting a previous statement.

Thanks,

Starkman

[Augustine2004]

Charleen, you forgot that I essentially follow grmorton's Day of Proclamation interpretation. I did forget that Abby rejects that interpretation, though. My apologies.

[Abigail]

Not so fast buster :bonk: In anycase, the helper had to have a certain qualification in that it/she needed to be suitable for the garden as well as Adam, Exactly!
These animals were ape-like ones. The one Adammwas going to hook up with had to be mentally advanced ans suitable in that sense:No Koff, these included birds which are not ape-like.

Gen. 4:1 And Adam (Ramaphitecus Man) knew Eve (mother of all hominoids) his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain (Ardipithecus ramidus), and said, I have gotten a man, (another hominoid), from the LORD. Eve is mother of all the living. There is an unbroken line through the maternal side of humanity to Christ, but the same cannot be said for the paternal line as Christ had no earthly father. God was his father.

Gen. 4:2 And she again bare his brother, (Lucy), Abel
(Australopithecus afarensis). And Abel (was carnivorous,) was a keeper of sheep, but Cain (a vegeterian,) was a tiller of the ground.Doesnt follow that because Abel kept a flock he ate them. If anything he probably kept them for their wool, as we know they needed clothes and besides God had authorised eating of plants only at that time and by his sacrifice to God we see that Abel was one who wanted to please God so the chances are more in favour of Abel being vegetarian...not that I see the significance of this turn you've taken us on


Or, God brought these dpecial types of animals, various species of apes, and just as in the days of Noah, they were entering into the daughgers of man:

Gen. 6:1 And it came to pass, when men, (Methusael Early Homo erectus), began to multiply on the face of the earth (around the end of the Pilocene Age in the Quaternary Period of the Cenozoic Era), and (Lamechian Homo antecessorian) daughters were born unto them,

Gen. 6:2 That the sons of God, (Methuselahian Modern Homo erectus), saw the daughters of men, (Methusaelian Homo antecessors), that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.:lol: ...nay brother!

[kofh2u]

No Koff, these included birds which are not ape-like.

Eve is mother of all the living. There is an unbroken line through the maternal side of humanity to Christ, but the same cannot be said for the paternal line as Christ had no earthly father. God was his father.

Doesnt follow that because Abel kept a flock he ate them. If anything he probably kept them for their wool, as we know they needed clothes and besides God had authorised eating of plants only at that time and by his sacrifice to God we see that Abel was one who wanted to please God so the chances are more in favour of Abel being vegetarian...not that I see the significance of this turn you've taken us on

:lol: ...nay brother!


What I like most about your response is your courage and self confidence to have one.

Second to this, you make a good critical point. Certainly, the verse says all animal, but includes birds too.
I exaggerated by omission in suggesting only the ape-like animals were the possible helpers who might become as "helpful" as would be the final selection of Eve.

You also suggest that Abel didn't eat meat, though he was a shepherd. Perhaps.
But, what is at issue a regards evolution and the theistic analogy found here is that Australopithecus appeared in two different species, concurrently. One was carnivorous and the other vegetarian. Scripture would be right on targey with its analogy as far as our present paleontology can tell.

But, you continue to demonstrate intelligent and thoughtful response in noting that if Eve was a hybrid mate to an Adam, (who the first evolutionary step into humanoid existence), then her genes would, indeed, be passed through all women to follow.

Hence, again, scripture is confirmed by their own words in Genetics.

Of course, we men must all have the same exact Y-chromosome. Maleness derives from this genetic fact of life. Men must receive their father's Y-chromosome, from a father who, likewise, had received the same Y-chromosome from his father, evermore back to Adam, himself.
I am reminding you that the Y-chromosomes are the only chromosomes passed directly from one man to the next.

Your insight into deep Theist Evolution informs me of a necessary corallory. Thank you for making the scientific deduction that helps explain the Virgin Birth!
That the final evolutionary step which separated Jesus from his predessors and his contemporaries, even outselves, is that important step that makes Him the first born of God.

The Y-chromosome of Jesus was obviously mutated.

The evolutionary process was affected by just some such intervention of the Universal Power, an act of God!

I sincerely am appreciative for this contribution!

[Augustine2004]

Koffy that is certainly interesting speculation about what Jesus Christ's DNA might be like, what the important difference between it and other men's DNA might be.

[A Beautiful Truth]

I dont know why you insist on this. Where does it say that 'on this day these had to be created and not again on any other'

Because the literal reading says God made birds on day five, not day six. Sort of like if I were to say that God made stars before day four. Gasp! :hehe:

If anything I see the emphasis on day 5 being 'water' and day 6 being 'ground' The different creations on those days are different because of the nature of their environments ie fish for sea and animals ground. Birds are different in that they fly above both water and gound. So maybe God finished water things on day 5 and ground things on day 6

Abigail, I appreciate you are trying to think this out. I also like to think such things out and it is always nicer to do thinking with people who are not quick to brand labels on you for thinking. I encourage you to continue. This particular argument of yours, however, does not do anything for the argument.


People will always have minor differences, however I have more in common with AiG than say someone like you as both AiG and me hold to a literal Genesis

You are arguing for aspects that are not literal, however, ie, overlapping creation days (overlapping creation days in that you believe God could have done His activities on other days besides the days that are recorded. You could have stars formed on other days, you could have birds created on other days, you could have plants created on other days, etc)

Most YEC's argue that it means God finished day five tasks on day five. They believe that is the plain, straightforward meaning of the text.
Well they are probably on to something there as I am sure God had an organized plan and finished all he had planned for day 5 on day 5,
Finished all he had planned for day five on day five, okay...
I just dont think if He formed further birds are formed on day 6 that you can say it has destroyed the meaning because maybe there is something else that makes day 5 novel.
Not finished all he had planned for day five on day five, okay...

I see a contradiction here. You can't have it both ways!
I would like love to know why 'formed' is used in 2:19

Probably because the actual purpose of the text was not to give a literal creation account so the author had no such care to jive it with Gen. 1.

Also Charlene, not to insult you, but sometimes what you seem to think is typical YEC understanding and what actually is are two different things.

You get to know the arguments quite well as you are insulted by them enough. Perhaps I know the arguments better than you because I am on the defensive end!

If he did make a few more animals/birds between A+E then that was in His plan for day 6,

Abigail, are you adding to the text? Birds were created on day five according to Gen. 1.

Something is literal if it physically actually happened as reported. How can it become unliteral if it is done twice

Like star formation on other days besides day four?

- I have had two kids does that mean I didnt literally have any kids. Dont flatter yourself Charlene :ahem:

I have two children as well. I think I ought to extend extra grace to you because we are in similar situations. I won't come down too hard on you for faulty logic :ahem:


I did see that thread but what I want to do is see those scriptures and see for myself what was interpreted as supporting geocentism

I suggest you look up that thread and whatever points that were not sufficiently addressed, address again. I think you should do it here instead of Applied Protology, though.

If God finished what He planned to do on a day then His work for that day was literally finished

And how do we *really* know? I guess we can't go by Gen. one for this information because the creative acts in those days were not exclusive to those days. Perhaps we can further reconcile chapter one to modern science using this technique! No, Abigail, if you wan't to keep Genesis as literal, you have to allow the text to speak for itself without any outside "help" such as "reading into" the text something that is just not there.
(you know I am being a bit sarcastic here, Abigail, you must understand I have been pounded with YEC rhetoric for years now)

[A Beautiful Truth]

Charleen, you forgot that I essentially follow grmorton's Day of Proclamation interpretation. I did forget that Abby rejects that interpretation, though. My apologies.

Augustine, I did not forget that you follow his interpretation. This is problematic for you as well because of your belief in a literal creation of man from the "dust" (dead homind) and of Eve. Do you also take the literal instantaneous creation of animals from the dust after Adam? If the account has many such non-literal elements, then Adam needs to be reconsidered as well, IMO. Challenge this.

[Augustine2004]

Charleen, I did some digging into the Hebrew of Genesis 1 this evening. It turns out to be much more tricky than I hoped it would be. I am now of the opinion that it is premature to discuss Genesis 2 until we are fairly well agreed on what Genesis 1 really means. Unfortunately there is a wide range of opinions. I perhaps will unsubscribe this thread in a few days.

[Abigail]

Because the literal reading says God made birds on day five, not day six. Sort of like if I were to say that God made stars before day four. Gasp! :hehe: (assuming Etcetera's reading of 2:19 is correct), the literal reading says God made birds on day 5 and then He made some more birds (perhaps different ones even) on day 6.


Abigail, I appreciate you are trying to think this out. I also like to think such things out and it is always nicer to do thinking with people who are not quick to brand labels on you for thinking. I encourage you to continue. This particular argument of yours, however, does not do anything for the argument. No Charlene I think it does. Look at Genesis 1 at each of the days and there does seem to be a thematic aspect which is perhaps more solid than the animals/birds/creepy crawlies. I think if we just keep ourselves tuned to the text and to the recurring themes throughout the Bible ie ground/earth/water/sea/light/darkness/seeds/kind we could perhaps see something which makes even better sense.




You are arguing for aspects that are not literal, however, ie, overlapping creation days (overlapping creation days in that you believe God could have done His activities on other days besides the days that are recorded. You could have stars formed on other days, you could have birds created on other days, you could have plants created on other days, etc) No I am arguing for a literal understanding of Genesis 1 and 2. I told you I think Genesis 1 is a summary and therefore will list each *novel* new creation. So in effect Genesis 1 would give the timing of the first appearance of something ie stars could not be created before day 4, because they are first mentioned on day 4. And of course we have day 7 as an upward limiter as well. Then birds could not have been created before day 5 as they are first mentioned on day 5. If more birds were made on day 6 then God would obviously have had a reason for doing that.


Finished all he had planned for day five on day five, okay...

Not finished all he had planned for day five on day five, okay...

I see a contradiction here. You can't have it both ways!There is only a contradiction if you insist on missing the nuance I tried to bring out. If God planned to make, say, all birds except flamingoes on day 5 and He did as he planned then at the end of day 5 he could say He had finished His work. On day 6 He then plans to make the flamingoes and He does so thereby finishing His work. Now just because we see flamingoes are birds we cannot accuse God of not finishing all he planned on day 5 since He never intended to make flamingoes on Day 5. What you are trying to imply is that until such time as God had made all birds that He ever planned to make then He was not really finished day 5's work and surely this is not required of the text with respect to Day 5.

Probably because the actual purpose of the text was not to give a literal creation account so the author had no such care to jive it with Gen. 1. I think the writer was giving a literal creation account and correctly understood they will mesh



Abigail, are you adding to the text? Birds were created on day five according to Gen. 1. I never said they were not created on Day 5. Genesis 1 tells us they were created on Day 5 and if Genesis 2:19 is telling us that some further birds were created on Day 6 then how can I be adding to the text if I note that if it was so then it must have been in God's plan to make further birds on Day 6.



Like star formation on other days besides day four? Star formation could not have happened any day before day 4 as Genesis 1 lists day 4 as their day of creation. Were there more formed on other days. We have no authority to say so as the text makes no mention of further stars being created on any other days.




I suggest you look up that thread and whatever points that were not sufficiently addressed, address again. I think you should do it here instead of Applied Protology, though. Perhaps I shall



And how do we *really* know? I guess we can't go by Gen. one for this information because the creative acts in those days were not exclusive to those days. Charlene, Genesis 1 never set out to tell you that the creation on each day was finished in its entirety on that day. It lists each novel creation and the day it was created. The only sense in which finished is conveyed in Gen 1 is in relation to each day ie the delimiters which mark out the passage of a day are noted without fail. The only time we hear mention of the word 'completed' in relation to works is in Genesis 2:1-2.

Perhaps we can further reconcile chapter one to modern science using this technique! No, Abigail, if you wan't to keep Genesis as literal, you have to allow the text to speak for itself without any outside "help" such as "reading into" the text something that is just not there.
(you know I am being a bit sarcastic here, Abigail, you must understand I have been pounded with YEC rhetoric for years now)As you can see you are the one reading in to the text by insisting 'finished' carries additional implications for each of the days of creation other than just the simple reading that the day itself was finished...gone...over...completed...done.

[A Beautiful Truth]

(assuming Etcetera's reading of 2:19 is correct), the literal reading says God made birds on day 5 and then He made some more birds (perhaps different ones even) on day 6.

My point is that this is a contradiction if you really take both accounts literally. If you allow this sort of liberty in Gen. one, then you must allow other aspects to be factored in. If you allow birds to be created on day six and not only on day five, then why not allow dinosaurs to be created on day five and for apple trees to be created on day six? You no longer have the cut and dry categorical creation that most YEC's want. I tell you, this is what the YEC criticize day agers for doing--overlapping creative days (overlapping in the activities)

No Charlene I think it does. Look at Genesis 1 at each of the days and there does seem to be a thematic aspect which is perhaps more solid than the animals/birds/creepy crawlies. I think if we just keep ourselves tuned to the text and to the recurring themes throughout the Bible ie ground/earth/water/sea/light/darkness/seeds/kind we could perhaps see something which makes even better sense.

You are beginning to sound like you might take the framework hypothesis next... (But what would AiG say to that?)

No I am arguing for a literal understanding of Genesis 1 and 2. I told you I think Genesis 1 is a summary and therefore will list each *novel* new creation. So in effect Genesis 1 would give the timing of the first appearance of something ie stars could not be created before day 4, because they are first mentioned on day 4.

So you believe trees could have been created on days four, five and six as well as three? So birds were not finished when the day broke. Well then I don't see any reason why not to see it in retro as well since there seems to be no real barriers to keep each days creative activities limited to that day, none whatsoever. The main *novel* creative work was done on each of the days but a few could have been created on any of the other days as well--Sure, sounds fine (but that is overlapping days again)

Then birds could not have been created before day 5 as they are first mentioned on day 5. [

If you are going to allow some to be made on other days not limiting it to day five, there is no sound reason for not allowing them to be made on prior days as well.

If more birds were made on day 6 then God would obviously have had a reason for doing that.

And if insects were really made before day six God would have had a reason for doing that as well.

There is only a contradiction if you insist on missing the nuance I tried to bring out.

What of the church fathers bring up this nuance? You may be in the very same danger in which people like me are accused of being. I don't mind the company.

Now just because we see flamingoes are birds we cannot accuse God of not finishing all he planned on day 5 since He never intended to make flamingoes on Day 5.

But the scriptures say... that birds were created on day five and there was evening and morning. To most YEC's, this means it was all done then, just as stars were only made on day four.

I never said they were not created on Day 5. Genesis 1 tells us they were created on Day 5 and if Genesis 2:19 is telling us that some further birds were created on Day 6 then how can I be adding to the text if I note that if it was so then it must have been in God's plan to make further birds on Day 6.

Because of the wording in Gen. one and how the YEC's interpret evening and morning as they strive for a literal translation. I just wanted to show that you cannot have a literal translation of both accounts because they contradict if you want literal.


Star formation could not have happened any day before day 4 as Genesis 1 lists day 4 as their day of creation.

Don't give me that. You who want birds on day six cannot argue for stars solely on day four. Perhaps that was not God's intent to create them all only on day four.

Charlene, Genesis 1 never set out to tell you that the creation on each day was finished in its entirety on that day. It lists each novel creation and the day it was created. The only sense in which finished is conveyed in Gen 1 is in relation to each day ie the delimiters which mark out the passage of a day are noted without fail. The only time we hear mention of the word 'completed' in relation to works is in Genesis 2:1-2.

If I were a day ager, I would agree with you entirely.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Hey Charlene,

Say, in regard to Genesis 2:18-19a Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens . . . . (ESV), are you completely ruling out any possibility that the reading is not chronological? Do you think it's possible that the author is conveying, as much Jewish writing is purported to do, a simple statement about Adam being without a helpmate--animals don't cut it? In other words, could not the use of the word, "Then" in the opening clause of verse 18 merely be a continuing of the generalities and not a statement of order? Yeah, we today read it as if it's chronological, but I'm wondering if some research would show that this isn't necessarily Hebrew thinking? I'm not sure, to tell you the truth, but I am of the understanding that the Hebrew movement in much writing is not styled with chronology, but with a point to be made, sometimes out-right contradicting a previous statement.

Yes, point well made and I agree. But to take it this way would be to understand this in a non-literal way. If this is not literal, how do we know the rest is literal? This was my question in the OP.

~Charleen

[Abigail]

My point is that this is a contradiction if you really take both accounts literally. If you allow this sort of liberty in Gen. one, then you must allow other aspects to be factored in. If you allow birds to be created on day six and not only on day five, then why not allow dinosaurs to be created on day five and for apple trees to be created on day six? You no longer have the cut and dry categorical creation that most YEC's want. I tell you, this is what the YEC criticize day agers for doing--overlapping creative days (overlapping in the activities) Charlene what you have to realize is that I personally have no authority to allow for anything. The only authority we have to say that more birds were created on day 6 is if we proved that Genesis 2:19 was telling us God further created a number of birds and animals after he made Adam and before he made Eve. You have to remain within the boundary of the text. Did God created stars on any other day except day 4. No, I do not believe He did as there is no evidence from the text



You are beginning to sound like you might take the framework hypothesis next. The framework hypothesis overlooks the clear indications that a day is a set period of time (24 hours).

(But what would AiG say to that?) Well since I never talk to anyone from AiG I don't suppose I will ever know.


So you believe trees could have been created on days four, five and six as well as three? So birds were not finished when the day broke. Well then I don't see any reason why not to see it in retro as well since there seems to be no real barriers to keep each days creative activities limited to that day, none whatsoever. You would have to clearly deny what is revealed in Genesis 1 to see it in retro. Genesis 1 tells us the beginning creation of each thing, ie it tells us when things were created for the first time and that is the sense I used 'novel' in ie it is something entirely new...something that has never been before. Now this understanding alone would make sense of the belief : a: that the stars could not have been created before day 4 as they are listed on Day 4 and Genesis 1 lists the time these things came into being (each creations little Big Bang equivalent for you Charlene :teeth: ) b: not having birds listed again on Day 6 in Genesis 1 would make sense as these had already been created on Day 5 and so were not strictly *new* on Day 6 ie birds existed before Day 6 (since they were created on Day 5) and Genesis 1 only lists creations not re-creations. The main *novel* creative work was done on each of the days but a few could have been created on any of the other days as well--Sure, sounds fine (but that is overlapping days again) No, novel is not to be understood as 'main' but as 'original' ie totally new never before having been etc. This IMO is what Genesis 1 is about.



If you are going to allow some to be made on other days not limiting it to day five, there is no sound reason for not allowing them to be made on prior days as well. No Charlene, Genesis 1 is the sound reason to disallow 'prior' days as it tells you when a thing was first ever created. To say for instance that the stars etc were created on Day 1 you would have to deny the plain reading of Genesis 1.



And if insects were really made before day six God would have had a reason for doing that as well. On which day does Genesis 1 list insects as being made? Identify that day and you can be sure they were not in being before that Day.



What of the church fathers bring up this nuance? You may be in the very same danger in which people like me are accused of being. I don't mind the company. My only concern Charlene is what God thinks of me. Does He agree with this interpretation? That is my concern.



But the scriptures say... that birds were created on day five and there was evening and morning. To most YEC's, this means it was all done then, just as stars were only made on day four.
'evening and morning' is about the passing of a day and has no relation to the birds, other than allowing us to know which Day/s birds were created/recreated on

Because of the wording in Gen. one and how the YEC's interpret evening and morning as they strive for a literal translation. I just wanted to show that you cannot have a literal translation of both accounts because they contradict if you want literal. No Genesis 1 is entirely consistant with a literal reading




Don't give me that. You who want birds on day six cannot argue for stars solely on day four. Perhaps that was not God's intent to create them all only on day four. I think you should deal with the fact that Genesis 1 is listing the time of coming into being of each creation and therefore my comment about stars before day 4 being impossible is consistent and totally logical



If I were a day ager, I would agree with you entirely.No i dont not think my view gives any solace to day agers.

[kuboes1831]

What a futile set of posts going round and round trying to take Genesis absolutely literally.

It is as intelligent as discussing Wordsworth's peom "I wandered lonely as a cloud" and then asking what tune the daffodils danced to!!!!!!

Please learn something about the genre of different parts of the bible and consider what kind of literature any passage is.

[Abigail]

What a futile set of posts going round and round trying to take Genesis absolutely literally.

It is as intelligent as discussing Wordsworth's peom "I wandered lonely as a cloud" and then asking what tune the daffodils danced to!!!!!! Your own post is worthless and as usual was delivered with the smug superiority that always has me rolling on the floor laughing. Gosh I am surprised you didnt grandstand about me needing to grovel before Glenn or George Murphy. :ahem:

Please learn something about the genre of different parts of the bible and consider what kind of literature any passage is. I suppose this comment is to fool people into thinking you are actually talking from a position of knowledge.

[Augustine2004]

Any translation of the ancient text of the Bible is to some extent an interpretation, no? So, we have to go directly to the Hebrew text, whenever there is subtle dispute over its meaning. Unfortunately, there is some differences of opinion as to the proper way to read it.

Literal word for word translation results in something that is not recognizably standard English.

In the beginning/ created/ God/ the heavens/ and/ the earth/:
and the earth/ was/ without form/ and empty/ and darkness/ on the face of/ the deep/ and the Spirit of/ God/ moving gently/ on/ the face of/ the waters:

Moreover, it does not convey a few fine points of Hebrew grammar. And the waw consecutive construction is not included! Full mastery of that is cruical to understanding Genesis 1, yet there seems to be some differences of opinion as to its semantic range.

For what my opinion is worth, I am now doubting grmorton's interpretation, based on my current puzzled understanding of the waw consecutive construction.

[A Beautiful Truth]

What a futile set of posts going round and round trying to take Genesis absolutely literally.

I had hoped to show this to be the case.

Please learn something about the genre of different parts of the bible and consider what kind of literature any passage is.

I agree. Perhaps you will start a thread.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Abigail,

I think we have done all that we can. If I responded we will be going in circles. Thanks for contributing.

~Charleen

[A Beautiful Truth]

Any translation of the ancient text of the Bible is to some extent an interpretation, no? So, we have to go directly to the Hebrew text, whenever there is subtle dispute over its meaning. Unfortunately, there is some differences of opinion as to the proper way to read it.

Literal word for word translation results in something that is not recognizably standard English.

In the beginning/ created/ God/ the heavens/ and/ the earth/:
and the earth/ was/ without form/ and empty/ and darkness/ on the face of/ the deep/ and the Spirit of/ God/ moving gently/ on/ the face of/ the waters:

Moreover, it does not convey a few fine points of Hebrew grammar. And the waw consecutive construction is not included! Full mastery of that is cruical to understanding Genesis 1, yet there seems to be some differences of opinion as to its semantic range.

For what my opinion is worth, I am now doubting grmorton's interpretation, based on my current puzzled understanding of the waw consecutive construction.

I think also, in addition to grammar, and probably more importantly, is the implied meaning of the text. What is it saying? Do you need to understand the grammar perfectly to figure it all out? I don't think so.

And Augustine, I think it good that you are not a stiff reed that can get broken when pushed too hard. It is good to consider things as you do and be honest about how they impact your beliefs. I commend you.

~Charleen

[Mercury]

I just read through this entire thread. :zzz:

Anyway, just one comment that, although it was addressed, was perhaps not made as clear as it could be:
There is only a contradiction if you insist on missing the nuance I tried to bring out. If God planned to make, say, all birds except flamingoes on day 5 and He did as he planned then at the end of day 5 he could say He had finished His work. On day 6 He then plans to make the flamingoes and He does so thereby finishing His work. Now just because we see flamingoes are birds we cannot accuse God of not finishing all he planned on day 5 since He never intended to make flamingoes on Day 5. What you are trying to imply is that until such time as God had made all birds that He ever planned to make then He was not really finished day 5's work and surely this is not required of the text with respect to Day 5.But it is required of the text if we take it literally:

And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." And there was evening, and there was morning -- the fifth day.
If flamingos (or any other kind of bird) were first created on day 6, Genesis 1:20-23 is not completely literal, since then not every kind of bird was created on day 5.

[kofh2u]

I just read through this entire thread. :zzz:

Anyway, just one comment that, although it was addressed, was perhaps not made as clear as it could be:
But it is required of the text if we take it literally:

And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." And there was evening, and there was morning -- the fifth day.
If flamingos (or any other kind of bird) were first created on day 6, Genesis 1:20-23 is not completely literal, since then not every kind of bird was created on day 5.

So?

The next move then is....
1) Accept contradiction as a divine prerogative. Postulate that God can, does, and will accomplish anything that is literal wrtten. God said it. End of discussion.

2) Deny that it is a contradiction. Assume that the generality of Chapter 2 is unconcerned with technical details like this.

3) Discard the literal, and go with a metaphor?

For instance:
The second day pertains to the image of God, the image inside the mind of his creation, man.
The "animal review" is mental. It is occuring in man's head. Man is becoming aware of animal which God created previously.
But, man has not cognitively recognized them until now, day 2.

4) What?

[Mercury]

So?

The next move then is....
[...]
4) What?I described my "next move" in Hearing both Genesis creation accounts (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44264). I didn't want to duplicate that here.

[Abigail]

I just read through this entire thread. :zzz:

Anyway, just one comment that, although it was addressed, was perhaps not made as clear as it could be:
But it is required of the text if we take it literally:

And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." And there was evening, and there was morning -- the fifth day.
If flamingos (or any other kind of bird) were first created on day 6, Genesis 1:20-23 is not completely literal, since then not every kind of bird was created on day 5.As far as I can see it just means every winged bird was created according to its kind ie there was not a winged bird to be found that was created according to a non-bird kind (so bang goes the dino-->bird theory). And of course the 'every' also just emphasises the fact that there was not a bird to be found that was not created by God

[Augustine2004]

The New Century Version puts Genesis a bit differently:
Then God said, "Let the water be filled with living things, and let birds fly in the air above the earth."

So God created the large sea animals and every living thing that moves in the sea. The sea is filled with these living things, with each one producing more of its own kind. He also made every bird that flies, and each bird produced more of its own kind. God saw that this was good. God blessed them and said, "Have many young ones so that you may grow in number. Fill the water of the seas, and let the birds grow in number on the earth." Evening passed, and morning came. This was the fifth day.Abigail, how did you read those verses as saying that the dinos did not evolve the birds? It does not say every dino produced more of its own kind. Besides, literally not every animal produced more of its own kind. I myself expect to die not having produced any more after my own kind. Did you not see those pictures of egg fossils with your own eyes?

[Abigail]

The New Century Version puts Genesis a bit differently:
Then God said, "Let the water be filled with living things, and let birds fly in the air above the earth."

So God created the large sea animals and every living thing that moves in the sea. The sea is filled with these living things, with each one producing more of its own kind. He also made every bird that flies, and each bird produced more of its own kind. God saw that this was good. God blessed them and said, "Have many young ones so that you may grow in number. Fill the water of the seas, and let the birds grow in number on the earth." Evening passed, and morning came. This was the fifth day.Abigail, how did you read those verses as saying that the dinos did not evolve the birds? It does not say every dino produced more of its own kind. Besides, literally not every animal produced more of its own kind. I myself expect to die not having produced any more after my own kind. Did you not see those pictures of egg fossils with your own eyes?
This passage says God created 'every winged bird according to its kind' so then the origin of birds with wings cannot be from something without wings (implied by 'according to kind'), furthermore because the text tells us 'every winged bird' is created by God then we can be sure no one else created them ie each and every winged bird that was created that day was created by God.

[kofh2u]

As far as I can see it just means every winged bird was created according to its kind ie there was not a winged bird to be found that was created according to a non-bird kind (so bang goes the dino-->bird theory). And of course the 'every' also just emphasises the fact that there was not a bird to be found that was not created by God


Sure, you make an excellent point here.

Paradigms are boxes containing our mind.
We do not want to "think out of the box," because the boundaries of that ark are the parameters of our world-view. Paradigms keep us "in bounds" of the common sense of rationality.

The reading already makes sense, from the vantage point of your paradigm of mind, which probably is a strict literalism of scripture.

Mercury, on the other hand, from reading his referenced essay, is in a different state of mind.

His paradigm is constructed using a definition for Elohim that is distinct and definitive. You probably found no reason to define God as used in Genesis 1:1.

But, Mercury has reasoned that his "box" must explain the perplexing two verses, Gen 1:26-7, that say, "Let us make man in our IMAGE."

His take, from there on, requires a perspective that sees God both external TO, and immanent IN man.

Hence, from the vantage point of his paradigm, Genesis 2 is referring to Immanent God. What we must overlay upon the text is the concept of man's mentally, what is going on in man's mind, peering out into the external world.

"Out there," man sees the animals for the first time. He sees the grass, and the whole creation, as if it was manufactured AFTER the sixth day.

I would think Mercury might agree with the TE interpretation that follows, while, from your paradigm, it is unnecessary "tinkering."

Gen. 2:6 But there went up a mist, (the forming of a mental illusion), from the earth, and (it permeated every aspect of the environment as if it had) watered the whole face of the ground.

[Mercury]

ie each and every winged bird that was created that day was created by God.If you're claiming that the "every" in Genesis 1:21 means "some", that means there may be other birds created on other days or by other gods. After all, if you have "every [interpreted as some] winged bird" created on day five and "all [interpreted as some] birds of the sky" created on day six after Adam, how do you know that by combining those two creative acts you've accounted for all the birds? (And no, appealing to Exodus 20:11 won't work, since that verse again uses the word "all" which you have reinterpreted.)

While I believe the days of Genesis 1 are intended mainly to give structure to something that would otherwise be unfathomable (and also to give a prescriptive example of the work week), I certainly don't limit the scope of God's creation the way your interpretation does.

[Abigail]

If you're claiming that the "every" in Genesis 1:21 means "some", that means there may be other birds created on other days or by other gods. After all, if you have "every [interpreted as some] winged bird" created on day five and "all [interpreted as some] birds of the sky" created on day six after Adam, how do you know that by combining those two creative acts you've accounted for all the birds? (And no, appealing to Exodus 20:11 won't work, since that verse again uses the word "all" which you have reinterpreted.) And what is so wrong with saying that by the end of day 5 every bird and living creature that was on the face of the earth was a creation of God. Every did mean all at that point in time (since everything that moved was created by the one true God) , but more importantly the every was stressing that God is sole Creator of every one (all). If he created more birds on the 6th day then so what - He was sole creator of each one of those too and the text says as much. Genesis 2:2 tells us that by the 7th day He had completed his work ie all the creative acts of God occured on days 1-6. Exodus 20:11 can be read as 'all' and even the sense there is indicative of that ie 'for in 6 days...' to me that is including everything that was made on days 1-6

I certainly don't limit the scope of God's creation the way your interpretation does.:ahem: of course you do...you limit God to an old earth and creating though evolution (if you are an evolutionist)

[Mercury]

And what is so wrong with saying that by the end of day 5 every bird and living creature that was on the face of the earth was a creation of God.Nothing wrong with that. And if someone else wants to claim that all the birds made a week later were made by Apollo, that works too. Because you've reinterpreted those verses, you no longer have a place in the text that claims God all the birds are part of God's creation.
Genesis 2:2 tells us that by the 7th day He had completed his work ie all the creative acts of God occured on days 1-6.Yes, and using your approach, God just finished creating the things he planned to create. Who knows what was all included in this and what other things were created later by other gods. Do you see how this opens up the text to mean anything?
:ahem: of course you do...you limit God to an old earth and creating though evolution (if you are an evolutionist)Not only am I an evolutionist, I'm also a gravitationalist! :lol: I place no limits on how God creates, and I believe he made the whole universe and everything in it. However, I accept the evidence in creation that shows how God creates. Since I didn't plant that evidence, this certainly doesn't mean I'm limiting God. If the evidence miraculously changed to point in a totally different direction, I'd have no problem accepting that too.

[Abigail]

Nothing wrong with that. And if someone else wants to claim that all the birds made a week later were made by Apollo, that works too. Because you've reinterpreted those verses, you no longer have a place in the text that claims God all the birds are part of God's creation. I dont know how you work this one out. Every bird with a wing (1:21)and every bird that flies in the sky(2:19) is made by the one true God so I think that squarely limits apollo's bird creation to zip as they couldnt have wings or fly in the sky.
Yes, and using your approach, God just finished creating the things he planned to create. Who knows what was all included in this and what other things were created later by other gods. Do you see how this opens up the text to mean anything? You only get to this conclusion as you ignore the categories.
Not only am I an evolutionist, I'm also a gravitationalist! :lol:Is that supposed to be a dig at me :ahem: I place no limits on how God creates, and I believe he made the whole universe and everything in it. However, I accept the evidence in creation that shows how God creates. Since I didn't plant that evidence, this certainly doesn't mean I'm limiting God. If the evidence miraculously changed to point in a totally different direction, I'd have no problem accepting that too.Yes, you keep telling me this.

[Mercury]

I dont know how you work this one out. Every bird with a wing (1:21)and every bird that flies in the sky(2:19) is made by the one true GodYou mean every bird with a wing was created on day five and every bird that flies was created on day six? Explain that to me, please.
Is that supposed to be a dig at me :ahem: Not at all. I was just pointing out that I don't consider myself an "evolutionist" any more than I consider myself a "gravitationalist". If you want to label me, I prefer "Christian".

Anyway, in an hour or two I'm taking off to visit family for a few days. Have a wonderful Christmas, Abigail.

[Abigail]

Anyway, in an hour or two I'm taking off to visit family for a few days. Have a wonderful Christmas, Abigail.You too...bump this thread when you get back if I havent already put in a reply to your post #181.

[Abigail]

Well it seems I am back before you Mercury :teeth:

I am not going to sift through this thread (long as it is), but as I recall Etc's rendering of 2:19 was along the lines of 'and out of the ground God further created...' which to me gives the sense of in addition to.

Even assuming that the 'every' meant the complete set of bird kinds in 1:20 then if 2:19 was telling us that God further formed a second set of every bird, then why not and especially if He was doing it because it had some deeper symbolic meaning.

Secondly the KJV has 1:20 rendered "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', so it seems the fowl in 1:20 were from the water and the ones in 2:19 were from the ground. These are therefore complete sets again each time

Thirdly, perhaps the 'birds' in 2:19 were cheribum -as I understand it cheribum have wings and where did they get the name 'cheribum' from - perhaps Adam. (this is just a thought though obviously I havent explored this idea)

Fourthly - in light of the numerous verses that tell us God created 'all', speculation of people like apollo creating is non-sensical as far as I am concerned.

[lucaspa]

And what is so wrong with saying that by the end of day 5 every bird and living creature that was on the face of the earth was a creation of God. Every did mean all at that point in time (since everything that moved was created by the one true God) , but more importantly the every was stressing that God is sole Creator of every one (all). If he created more birds on the 6th day then so what - He was sole creator of each one of those too and the text says as much.But the text does NOT say God created more birds on day 6. A human interpretation says this. The interpretation that forces Genesis 2 to be day 6 of Genesis 1. The fact that birds are created after man in Genesis 2 says that, if you read both literally, they contradict. Therefore, you should not be reading both literally. You've got 2 stories here.

of course you do...you limit God to an old earth and creating though evolution (if you are an evolutionist)No, we don't limit God. We say God could have created in 6 days. It's just that the evidence God left us says He did not. You say it is impossible for Him to have created by evolution. Therefore, you are limiting Him.

[lucaspa]

I am not going to sift through this thread (long as it is), but as I recall Etc's rendering of 2:19 was along the lines of 'and out of the ground God further created...' which to me gives the sense of in addition to. But is Etc's rendering correct? After all, Genesis 2:18 says "Then the Lord God said, "it is not good for the man to live alone. I will make a suitable companion to help him." Now, if birds already exist from day 5, there is no need of God to make more birds. Just have one of the already made birds come to the Garden. The formation in Genesis 2:19 makes sense only if there were no animals or birds and God had to make them from scratch. Thus you have the order in Genesis 2 contradicting the order in Genesis 1.

Secondly the KJV has 1:20 rendered "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', so it seems the fowl in 1:20 were from the water and the ones in 2:19 were from the ground. These are therefore complete sets again each timeThe KJV has again betrayed you as to the Hebrew. A better translation is: "Let the water be filled with many kinds of living beings, and let the air be filled with birds." This eliminates your "from" the water.

Thirdly, perhaps the 'birds' in 2:19 were cheribum -as I understand it cheribum have wings and where did they get the name 'cheribum' from - perhaps Adam. (this is just a thought though obviously I havent explored this idea) Then why isn't the Hebrew "cherubim" used? After all, it is used elsewhere in the OT, then why not here if that is what was meant?

[Abigail]

Now, if birds already exist from day 5, there is no need of God to make more birds. :ahem: limiting God to your own assumptions again lucaspa

The KJV has again betrayed you as to the Hebrew. A better translation is: "Let the water be filled with many kinds of living beings, and let the air be filled with birds." This eliminates your "from" the water. And where do tell does it say they were made from the ground in that verse?

Then why isn't the Hebrew "cherubim" used? After all, it is used elsewhere in the OT, then why not here if that is what was meant?Perhaps because Adam hadnt named them at that stage.

Lucaspa until you declare yourself a Christian I am not replying to you again on this thread. And I am not engaging in any guessing games such as you advocated to another poster