Genesis 1 v Genesis 2 [Archive I]

spin

January 3, 2004, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Amos
Not really and the best I will do is agree that the mythmaker was pushing his luck a little to conceal the argument under the surface structure. Remember here that it was his business to speak the truth but conceal it so it would attract followers.

This is mainly your assumption, isn't it? We need to start with what the source says, not our opinions.

God created light and light is life.

The first part doesn't belong with the second part, at least while ascertaining what the author said. What appears in one text has no necessary relation with that of another. Different texts can happily contradict others.

When God saw how 'good' the light was the contradiction is implied that darkens is death (or life can not be good)...

Here you are totally leaving your source text. By doing so you give yourself no chance of relating your comments ot the source, except as an excursion from it, often called "flow of consciousness".

... and out of this concept the fall of man was created wherefore evening came already on the first day

The method of going off in a tangent from the source text, then making assumptions on that tangent, which leads to new tangents I don't find helpful to the text at all.

-- or it could not not follow on the seventh day when we are born unto eternal life and therefore evening does not follow the day.

More assumption. Evening follows the day and that is explained in our source text. There is no hint that evening shall at some stage not follow the day.

According to this analogy life and the fall of man was created on the first day.

It was not an analogy.

The waters are equal to knowledge and the dome is where knowledge can expand over the fullness of time.The division above and below the waters allow for knoweldge to accumulate and be retained between two minds that are twain and not twin with the sky being the limit...

What in the source text causes you to think these things?

... It is what makes heaven round, life beautiful and gives us the desire to live and learn.

That was a nice promise, I think.

What you have said doesn't come from your source text. That is my problem with what you said.

spin

Amos

January 4, 2004, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by spin

What in the source text causes you to think these things?

What you have said doesn't come from your source text. That is my problem with what you said.

spin

Sorry spin, you don't have to accept anything I write. I have lots and lots source texts but the same interpretation problems will arise there as well and therefore it does not help me to resort to these.

Let me just point out to you that on the seventh day of creation evening did not follow the day because that is the day wherein redemption is attained and therefore is called Sunday. It is celebrated on Easter Sunday and last for two days to reinforce the idea that evening did not follow the day. Here, we will have arrived at the time where there is not need for the light of common day etc. as is found in Rev.21:23-25.

The NAB is best for this as it reads in verse 5 "thus, evening came and morning followed-the first day." This day-count continues very rythmic (except for the "thus" which only belongs in verse 3), until the seventh day when evening does not follow the day. This sudden omission means something and deserves us to ponder what it could possibly mean.

I like the "stream of consciousness" trips into wonderland and most often come back with some good stuff. Didn't Zamjatin go there often near the end of WE?

spin

January 4, 2004, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by Magus55
Not if Gen 2 was from man's perspective. The Bible says God brought the animals to Adam. If Adam was just created, with nothing but himself around, He would explain it that He was created first.

This is just special pleading. What we get is, though there is no evidence for it, the view "from man's perspective". Why? Just trust Magus55. He/she doesn't consider 2:18ff in which yhwh 'elohym said that it wasn't right that man should be alone, then he formed every animal of the field...

Why oh why can't pundits read what the text actually says before delivering these miraculous revisions?

spin

spin

January 4, 2004, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by Amos
Sorry spin, you don't have to accept anything I write. I have lots and lots source texts but the same interpretation problems will arise there as well and therefore it does not help me to resort to these.

In this case you don't have lots and lots. We are dealing with a specific source text and before you read anything into it from outside, you need to deal with what it says literally. Until you do so, you have no tangible starting point.

Next, once the literal content is evaluated, the only texts of any value to that which we are studying are those which came before so as to provide a context for the writing of our source text, so that we have comparisons for the period from which to draw an evaluation framework.

Let me just point out to you that on the seventh day of creation evening did not follow the day because that is the day wherein redemption is attained and therefore is called Sunday.

Sunday? Interesting revision. Saturday is the English equivalent of the sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week. xians had to use Sunday to show their difference from the Jewish sabbath (just as the Muslims chose Friday). God rested on the seventh day, not the first day.

Easter Sunday and Revelation have nothing at all to do with our source text.

The NAB is best for this as it reads in verse 5 "thus, evening came and morning followed-the first day."...

It's not quite what the text says. It's been tarted up for easy reading.

... This day-count continues very rythmic (except for the "thus" which only belongs in verse 3), until the seventh day when evening does not follow the day. This sudden omission means something and deserves us to ponder what it could possibly mean.

I'll let you ponder!

I don't think we can get too much further here. We were dealing with what the text says, not what one brings to it. The task is for us to shed as much of what we bring as possible so as to get closer to what the text can mean.

spin

Amos

January 4, 2004, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by spin
Next, once the literal content is evaluated, the only texts of any value to that which we are studying are those which came before so as to provide a context for the writing of our source text, so that we have comparisons for the period from which to draw an evaluation framework.

But these mythmakers were inspired freelancers were they not?

Sunday? Interesting revision. Saturday is the English equivalent of the sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week. xians had to use Sunday to show their difference from the Jewish sabbath (just as the Muslims chose Friday). God rested on the seventh day, not the first day.

That may be true but where I come from (Netherland) Sunday was the seventh day of the week and 'moony' Monday was the first day on the calender. Of course that was Catholic and not Christian--if that helps you any.

Easter Sunday and Revelation have nothing at all to do with our source text.

They are similar in that Easter is where our Church calender comes full circle just as the bible does in the book of Revelation.

It's not quite what the text says. It's been tarted up for easy reading.

Yes it's very gracefully poetic and not very misleading.

I'll let you ponder!

Thanks, I will. It's been fun.

spin

January 4, 2004, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Amos
But these mythmakers were inspired freelancers were they not?

How would you know?

That may be true but where I come from (Netherland) Sunday was the seventh day of the week and 'moony' Monday was the first day on the calender. Of course that was Catholic and not Christian--if that helps you any.

No. We are left with the Sabbath as the sabbath. What the Netherlands and catholicism have done is irrelevant in changing the calendar has no reflection on the original data. You should try not to look on the past as though it were a reflection of the present.

Yes it's very gracefully poetic and not very misleading.

Sadly you wouldn't know if it were misleading or not.

spin

TheDiddleyMan

January 4, 2004, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Magus55
Not if Gen 2 was from man's perspective. The Bible says God brought the animals to Adam. If Adam was just created, with nothing but himself around, He would explain it that He was created first.

After reading the passage a bit more in depth, that seems implausible IMHO.

First of all, what indication is there that it is from "man's perspective"? How is it from a different perspective than chapter 1?

Second, why do you assume there was "nothing but himself" around? There were plants around, so why wouldn't there be animals?

Thirdly, the reason for the creation of animals is given - Adam needs a helper. Now if that was the reason that animals were created this indicates that they wouldn't be there before there was a reason, because if they were the reason given in text seems odd.

Finally, God explaining that he created Adam first when he didn't would be a lie, plain and simple, and an absolutely unecessary one at that.

The only thing I can see that might mean something or give a "loophole" so to speak is verse 20, which mentions beasts of the field and birds of the sky, but nothing of water. Why that is, I don't know....

Kevin

Spaz

January 4, 2004, 02:19 PM

I dunno, the only thing that seems to make sense is if the 2 stories were separate stories that were (confusingly) stuck together. The first story seems to end with the third verse of the second chapter of genesis, then a completely different story is started.

Amos

January 4, 2004, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by spin
How would you know?

That is what inspired means by definition and I even think that they were on a stream of consciousness trip they want us to follow.

No. We are left with the Sabbath as the sabbath. What the Netherlands and catholicism have done is irrelevant in changing the calendar has no reflection on the original data. You should try not to look on the past as though it were a reflection of the present.

You seem to forget here that the "infallible church" has every right to use the original data and take it to any height they want to. They made this clear with the genealogy of Jesus that goes right back to God and no ancient Sabbath is going to prevent this.

Sadly you wouldn't know if it were misleading or not.

Well now that is where "grace" is a faith-builder.

Doctor X

January 4, 2004, 06:54 PM

DiddleyMan:

Spaz gives the answer--two separate creation stories stiched together.

Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible? gives a good explanation of the process.

--J.D.

Magus55

January 4, 2004, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by TheDiddleyMan
After reading the passage a bit more in depth, that seems implausible IMHO.

First of all, what indication is there that it is from "man's perspective"? How is it from a different perspective than chapter 1?

Second, why do you assume there was "nothing but himself" around? There were plants around, so why wouldn't there be animals?Lets look at Genesis 2:

Gen 2:8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

Gen 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.

Notice its in past tense? God had planted the garden, and had placed the animals in the garden, and put man in the garden. The plants and animals had already been created prior to putting man in the garden.

Thirdly, the reason for the creation of animals is given - Adam needs a helper. Now if that was the reason that animals were created this indicates that they wouldn't be there before there was a reason, because if they were the reason given in text seems odd. I think you getting confused. Eve was created to be a help mate, not the animals. God brought some of the animals to Adam to be named and used for Adam's purposes.

Gen 2:19 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.

Finally, God explaining that he created Adam first when he didn't would be a lie, plain and simple, and an absolutely unecessary one at that.

The only thing I can see that might mean something or give a "loophole" so to speak is verse 20, which mentions beasts of the field and birds of the sky, but nothing of water. Why that is, I don't know....God didn't explain that He created Adam first. God said He created Adam. Then after saying that, He said, He had planted the garden and put in the animals. Day 2 focuses on Adam, which is why God mentions the creation of Adam, but only references to the creation of everything else in past tense. Gen 2 isn't written chronologically. Essentially its saying, God created man out of dust, and put man in the garden full of plants and animals He had created, and then brought those animals to Adam to be named. The Garden was already in existence before Adam was formed, but since Gen 2 focuses on Adam and day 6, not the rest of Creation, it just makes reference to the garden having been formed already. There is no need to put it in chronological order again, since that was the purpose of Gen 1.

spin

January 4, 2004, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by Amos
That is what inspired means by definition and I even think that they were on a stream of consciousness trip they want us to follow.

How can you make the distinction between being inspired and being a deluded paranoic? Obviously only by evidence, and y ou keep showing you've got none.

You seem to forget here that the "infallible church" has every right to use the original data and take it to any height they want to. They made this clear with the genealogy of Jesus that goes right back to God and no ancient Sabbath is going to prevent this.

The church is a bunch of men. Can you show that I am wrong? If not, think of them as a bunch of men.

Well now that is where "grace" is a faith-builder.

No, not grace, which is something you can only guess about. Blind-faith is apparently your only tool. Blind-faith pushes the suicide bomber to work, pushes the ascetic to whip himself, pushes the zealot to burn people at the stake.

You cannot simply trust a text that you use, especially a translation that pacifies your ignorance rather than one that attempts to say what the original said.

spin

spin

January 4, 2004, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by Magus55
Lets look at Genesis 2:

Gen 2:8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

Gen 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.

It's very hard for English speakers to say much intelligent on the subject of linguistics. The translation which uses "had" plus past participle doesn't reflect the original Hebrew, for all the verbs are Qal imperfect.

Notice its in past tense? God had planted the garden, and had placed the animals in the garden, and put man in the garden. The plants and animals had already been created prior to putting man in the garden.

And because one uses an erroneous translation one comes to erroneous conclusions. The Hebrew verb forms are what one expects in a normal narrative: x happens, then y, then z. We are not dealing with the equivalents of English past perfects.

I think you getting confused. Eve was created to be a help mate, not the animals.

Read what the text actually says before you start interpreting. That way you might have a chance to understand what the writer says.

Verse 2:18 tells us that God said that he will make the man a help, which is followed in v19 by God making animals and birds, yet in v20 we still find after this that no suitable help was found. It is then that God makes a second attempt and creates a woman. (You won't like this, but it is what the text says.)

God brought some of the animals to Adam to be named and used for Adam's purposes.

Gen 2:19 He brought them to the man to see what he would name them;

This is incorrect. God formed (YCR) the animals out of the earth, just as he had formed (YCR) man out of the dust of the earth. I don't know where you are getting your versions of the text, but they have no direct relation to what the Hebrew says.

God didn't explain that He created Adam first. God said He created Adam.

The grammar and the narrative explains that that is exactly what happened. Please go and ask someone who understands Hebrew grammar well enough.

Then after saying that, He said, He had planted the garden and put in the animals. Day 2 focuses on Adam, which is why God mentions the creation of Adam, but only references to the creation of everything else in past tense. Gen 2 isn't written chronologically. Essentially its saying, God created man out of dust, and put man in the garden full of plants and animals He had created, and then brought those animals to Adam to be named. The Garden was already in existence before Adam was formed, but since Gen 2 focuses on Adam and day 6, not the rest of Creation, it just makes reference to the garden having been formed already. There is no need to put it in chronological order again, since that was the purpose of Gen 1.

If you dealt with the text as written you would know that this is simply wrong. I understand that you believe first so you must be correct, but understand you are not dealing with what the text actually says.

spin

TheDiddleyMan

January 4, 2004, 11:49 PM

Hmmm....

Magus, you could be right. However, most of the texts do not have "had" but use a different tense, at least it would seem so. I think I should investigate the differences.......

Kevin

spin

January 4, 2004, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by TheDiddleyMan
Magus, you could be right. However, most of the texts do not have "had" but use a different tense, at least it would seem so. I think I should investigate the differences.......

Sorry, but Magus 55 is plain wrong. He shows he doesn't know what he's talking about by not even using a recognised translation, for what he says bears little relation to the Hebrew original.

spin

TheDiddleyMan

January 4, 2004, 11:56 PM

I got this from Answers in Genesis, here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1272.asp

THEM: Jewish scholars apparently did not recognize any such conflict with the account in chapter 1, where Adam and Eve were both created after the beasts and birds (Genesis 1:23�25). Why is this? Because in Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb �formed� in Genesis 2:19 to mean �had formed� or �having formed�. If we translate verse 19 as follows (as one widely used translation* does), �Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field ��, the apparent disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely.

ME: Okay, so I know AiG is not always the most reliable source of info, but if what they say about the tense is correct, then there is not a contradiction. And to be honest, I find it hard to believe that the original writers would be so silly as to place two totally contradictory accounts right next to each other. Does anybody know of any good places to go that provide a different interpretation?

in spite of what I said above, I find it hard to believe as well that no other translation other than the NIV (that I've looked at, anyway) uses "had formed", even the amplified bible doesn't, because an English reader, not reading the Hebrew, would read Genesis 2 differently if the "hads" are not used. For example, the NKJV

18Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for[5] him." 19So out of the ground the LORD God formed[6] every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

Verse 19 says "So", implying that it was because of what happens in verse 18 that God creates animals, not that God had already created animals.

The Amplified Bible:

18Now the Lord God said, It is not good (sufficient, satisfactory) that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper meet (suitable, adapted, complementary) for him.
19And out of the ground the Lord God formed every [wild] beast and living creature of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them; and whatever Adam called every living creature, that was its name.

It uses "And" which suggests strongly that after the events in verse 18 were animals created.

It's hard to see what is the real story here, at least for me.

Kevin

Amos

January 5, 2004, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by spin
How can you make the distinction between being inspired and being a deluded paranoic? Obviously only by evidence, and y ou keep showing you've got none.

When common sense returns and all the contradictions are removed.

The church is a bunch of men. Can you show that I am wrong? If not, think of them as a bunch of men.

Yes I think so. The Church is built on divine revelation and the Papal seat is just occupied by mortal men (with due respect nonetheless). They have a system in place to maintain and update this truth if revelation would have it so, and so on, and so on, but I seem to always forget how it works exactly.

It first began when Peter recognized the dual nature of Jesus as the messiah and was therefore called the Rock. To be sure, not Peter as Peter but the insight of Peter was the Rock.

Next, the removal of doubt from Thomas defrocked Peter who was the twin of Thomas because faith cannot be conceived to exist without doubt. After the removal of faith and doubt from "Jesus the Christ" the exclamation of Thomas "my Lord and my God" signified that Jesus and Christ had now become one and the same and therefore "Jesus Christ." The upshot of this is that from that point on earth and heaven is one and the same = heaven on earth.

Next they go fishing and here Peter was still without faith (defrocked) and therefore could not catch anything in the waters on the left side of the boat. So then, when Jesus told them to throw their nets on the other side of the boat Peter once again put on his cloak of faith and dove headfirst into the celestial sea, which is on the right side of the boat and that is where inspiration catches the big ones that will 'never' get away.

This is how the evidence ends that the Catholic church is Holy and why it is that the gates of hell will not prevail against her.

No, not grace, which is something you can only guess about. Blind-faith is apparently your only tool. Blind-faith pushes the suicide bomber to work, pushes the ascetic to whip himself, pushes the zealot to burn people at the stake.

Not blind faith, sir, because it is our comminion with the saints in heaven that provide us with the inspired passages, icons and artifacts that we contemplate daily. Communion exists because these sacraments and sacramentals are inspired and therefore abound with grace.

You cannot simply trust a text that you use, especially a translation that pacifies your ignorance rather than one that attempts to say what the original said.

Of course you can but you must first learn to "walk on water." This, of course, is also a metaphor and means that you must learn to trust your own celestial sea and actually "go by it." :confused:

At this point we are back to that same "stream of consciousness" journey and that is where I will stop.

spin

January 5, 2004, 12:59 AM

TheDiddleyMan

I don't really know why you don't read what I said on the matter. AnswersInGenesis has an agenda: they want the texts to make sense to their conscience, ie there can't be contradictions, so let's bend the grammar and logic to fit our presuppositions.

I have explained that the translation given is not a reflection of the Hebrew, so the logic based on such an English translation has no value.

As you have looked at a number of translations -- and I can add the KJV, ASV, RSV, the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate --, the NIV past perfects should be seen as ideological and in no way reflecting the text. I would leave the NIV on the shelf because it too often proves to be an ideological tool, as in the way it translates Gen 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" without even a footnote givng the alternative reading which is the main form used in the RSV "In the beginning when God created..." Not even putting the alternative reading in the footnotes tells you to be wary of the NIV. Another fine example is Isaiah 7:14 when NIV gives the mistranslation "virgin" instead of "young woman" as per the Hebrew. This is an unacceptable modern translation prone to ideological concerns and not what the text says.

I suggest that you seek a good beginner's grammar of Hebrew to undersand the Hebrew verb system if you want to go past where you are now. You'll get no help from apologetic sources such as AiG.

spin

spin

January 5, 2004, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by Amos
When common sense returns and all the contradictions are removed.

You have no way of deciding then if you are paranoid or not. Common sense needs a coherent foundation on which to work. That is called evidence. Why don;t you want to deal with evidence?

The Church is built on divine revelation and the Papal seat is just occupied by mortal men (with due respect nonetheless). They have a system in place to maintain and update this truth if revelation would have it so, and so on, and so on, but I seem to always forget how it works exactly.

This maybe your belief.

but I seem to always forget how it works exactly.

but shouldn't you know? Why depend on their errors?

It first began when Peter recognized the dual nature of Jesus as the messiah and was therefore called the Rock. To be sure, not Peter as Peter but the insight of Peter was the Rock.

You are not talking about what happened but about what you've read. You have no way of knowing whether what you've read happened or not. You need evidence, but you don't use evidence.

Next, the removal of doubt from Thomas defrocked Peter who was the twin of Thomas because faith cannot be conceived to exist without doubt. After the removal of faith and doubt from "Jesus the Christ" the exclamation of Thomas "my Lord and my God" signified that Jesus and Christ had now become one and the same and therefore "Jesus Christ." The upshot of this is that from that point on earth and heaven is one and the same = heaven on earth.

Doubt is what you use to stay alive. Faith is what you use so that you don't have to think all the time. You have strayed far from the topic: you're starting to run on drivel mode. You are talking to yourself and not your interlocutor.

Next they go fishing and here Peter was still without faith (defrocked) and therefore could not catch anything in the waters on the left side of the boat. So then, when Jesus told them to throw their nets on the other side of the boat Peter once again put on his cloak of faith and dove headfirst into the celestial sea, which is on the right side of the boat and that is where inspiration catches the big ones that will 'never' get away.

When you cross the road do you look both ways or do you walk under the first car? What you do in real life should be a guide for you. You use the evidence from the world around you on which to base your decisions. It might be nice to have mummy hold your hand all your life, but she just can't be there all the time, so you have to wing it by yourself. The solution that best suits you is to go nowhere and do nothing. That's safe but unrealistic.

This is how the evidence ends that the Catholic church is Holy and why it is that the gates of hell will not prevail against her.

Mummy is till a virgin, so her children are immaculate.

Not blind faith, sir, because it is our comminion with the saints in heaven that provide us with the inspired passages, icons and artifacts that we contemplate daily. Communion exists because these sacraments and sacramentals are inspired and therefore abound with grace.

And the tooth fairy exists as does Santa Claus. Well everyone says so, so itmust be so. You make statements that are based on your beliefs to people who don't hold your beliefs, so you are wasting your breath in that you are unable to communicate with your interlocutor. It's like the paranoid schizophrenic who simply can't tell people about his special friends -- because the people can't see his friends, it means that they are at loss.

Ye olde spin had the temerity to say:
You cannot simply trust a text that you use, especially a translation that pacifies your ignorance rather than one that attempts to say what the original said.

To which Amos boldly responded:
Of course you can but you must first learn to "walk on water." This, of course, is also a metaphor and means that you must learn to trust your own celestial sea and actually "go by it." :confused:

Metaphors are no good to you when you cross the street and you get hit by a car. It's better to look at the car and work on the evidence you receive to make you moves. When you go on about "walking on water" and "celestial sea", do you think you are trying to comunicate? You are highly selective in the way you use information. You go about the real world, acting as though you are part of the real world, making moves based on real world data. Then arbitrarily, you withhold real world data when dealing with matters of "belief".

In the end I find, 1) you don't make an effort to communicate with the people you seem to be responding to, 2) you don't work on communicating in a way that shows you want to communicate, 3) you make assumptions based on assumptions based on assumptions based on assumptions (and because of it I can understand why you say such weird and wonderful things).

At this point we are back to that same "stream of consciousness" journey and that is where I will stop.

Well, if you want to communicate, you should leave off with the stream of consciousness, because the willy-nilly outpouring of unordered thoughts from your head doesn't give much hope for your poor readers to see that you have anything meaningful to say. If your aim is not communication, you might say so and no-one will attempt to communicate with you.

spin

Amos

January 5, 2004, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by spin
You have no way of deciding then if you are paranoid or not. Common sense needs a coherent foundation on which to work. That is called evidence. Why don;t you want to deal with evidence?

Yes, that is a problem for me and I recognize that. Much of my reasoning is based on my readings of literature in the past and for the most part I would not even know where to look for it. But as I told you before, the same problem will arise there because even if I would show you how and why all divine comedies are the same it would still remain subject to your acceptance of my interpretation.

This maybe your belief.
but shouldn't you know? Why depend on their errors?

Yes it is my belief and no, I don't need to know. I am not the Pope and so it is not mine to protect. I actually don't see why I should 'depend' on my religion because I don't believe much of what I hear and don't really know what I am asked to believe. Let's just say that I am happy to be a poor Catholic like most of the rest because it is impossible to know all there is to know about the Church.

You are not talking about what happened but about what you've read. You have no way of knowing whether what you've read happened or not. You need evidence, but you don't use evidence.

Most people are still arguing about what the "rock of salvation" really is and to me it makes perfect sense that insight is the rock of salvation if understanding must set us free from religious indoctrination.

Doubt is what you use to stay alive. Faith is what you use so that you don't have to think all the time. You have strayed far from the topic: you're starting to run on drivel mode. You are talking to yourself and not your interlocutor.

My reason for adding this was to show that faith should not be the basis for religion itself but understanding of the entire journey of faith is and that faith is resolved in the final understanding when all doubt is removed. Hence the "infallible" position of the church is a declaration of their own comprehension.

When you cross the road do you look both ways or do you walk under the first car? What you do in real life should be a guide for you. You use the evidence from the world around you on which to base your decisions. It might be nice to have mummy hold your hand all your life, but she just can't be there all the time, so you have to wing it by yourself. The solution that best suits you is to go nowhere and do nothing. That's safe but unrealistic.

And that is exactly why the historic Jesus doesn't have to hold our hand. We are on our own and just recently have added revealed dogma to the constitution of the Church (with the Immaculate Conception, I think it was -- for which there exist a simple philosophical argument as well).

Mummy is till a virgin, so her children are immaculate.

Perpetual is the word we use.

You make statements that are based on your beliefs to people who don't hold your beliefs, so you are wasting your breath in that you are unable to communicate with your interlocutor.

There is nothing wrong with providing a different perspective and may even be beneficial if it can shake the faith of my reader.

//

In the end I find, 1) you don't make an effort to communicate with the people you seem to be responding to, 2) you don't work on communicating in a way that shows you want to communicate, 3) you make assumptions based on assumptions based on assumptions based on assumptions (and because of it I can understand why you say such weird and wonderful things).

Interesting. I once wrote a "Character Delineation of 'We'" that was submitted for publication upon the recommendation of my prof. who was a mature expert (?) in Slavic Languages and Literature. It was rejected by the publisher pretty much out of fear that my controversy would destroy all or most of the existing criticism on that work and that would be unfair at this late stage in the game.

To built on existing criticism is good but there is nothing wrong with a revolutionary perspective unless revolt is not desired. With that I can agree, but the my problem is that I can't 'untink' the way I think (oh and please say that I need psycho help). :eek:

spin

January 5, 2004, 08:11 PM

Sadly Amos, most of your response seemed to me more of the flow of consciousness, so I'll "cut to the quick":

Originally posted by Amos
I once wrote a "Character Delineation of 'We'" that was submitted for publication upon the recommendation of my prof. who was a mature expert (?) in Slavic Languages and Literature. It was rejected by the publisher pretty much out of fear that my controversy would destroy all or most of the existing criticism on that work and that would be unfair at this late stage in the game.

People with revolutionary ideas are always so misunderstood, aren't they?

To built on existing criticism is good but there is nothing wrong with a revolutionary perspective unless revolt is not desired.

I don't mind revolutionary perspectives. They usually bring clarity.

With that I can agree, but the my problem is that I can't 'untink' the way I think (oh and please say that I need psycho help). :eek:

You can learn thinking techniques, if you want. Logic is not one of the mysteries.

spin

Paul5204

January 6, 2004, 01:59 AM

If you guys and gals haven't figured it out yet, the reason why there is no "and evening was and morning was, for a day seven," is because it is still day seven, a sabbath holy to the Lord. So act accordingly. Eternity starts and ends with for a day 8 [which not surprisingly also happens to be the day of circumcision, the day of the cutting off of human (this world) flesh].

spin

January 6, 2004, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by Paul5204
If you guys and gals haven't figured it out yet, the reason why there is no "and evening was and morning was, for a day seven," is because it is still day seven, a sabbath holy to the Lord. So act accordingly. Eternity starts and ends with for a day 8 [which not surprisingly also happens to be the day of circumcision, the day of the cutting off of human (this world) flesh].

There is no day eight for the creation. Putting an end to the day only makes way for such a day eight. The text is an institutionalisation of the sabbath. Why else does the writer frame the creation in six days plus the day of rest to end the process? God's work was done. So obviously our days are recurrent repeats of God's work but on a lower plane. :)

spin

Doctor X

January 6, 2004, 08:49 PM

Spin:

I suggest that you seek a good beginner's grammar of Hebrew to undersand the Hebrew verb system. . . .

Do you have some recommendations?

--J.D.

Amos

January 6, 2004, 09:55 PM

Post Deleted. Sorry spin I did not see your post with regard to the eight days.

Amlodhi

January 6, 2004, 10:33 PM

Hi Doctor X,

RE: beginning Hebrew grammars:

I don't mean to preemp spin here and I'm sure he will have some good recommendations. However, in my opinion, one of the best structured grammars I have come across is:

"Biblical Hebrew, An Introductory Grammar" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/asin/0802805981/internetinfidels), Page H. Kelley, William B. Eerdmans Publishing.

It is inexpensive in paperback, easy to use and provides the examples in the form of biblical quotes. Nearly perfect for the beginner.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Added Amazon link - MD

CJD

January 9, 2004, 10:56 AM

Just a few thoughts:

I do think that the first creation narrative serves distinctly as an institutionalisation of the Sabbath. I also think that the narrative (along with most others in the Tanak) assumes a two-register cosmology (i.e., upper and lower). Both of these were already mentioned by spin.

One thing I cannot allow, however, is spin's insistence on cleaving a "source text" from the actual completed or edited text of the Deuteronomist. Maybe I have misunderstood him/her, but if not, this is where his/her exegesis (of the relationship between) of the two accounts would fail miserably. In truth, our differences pertain to our committment to start either atomistically or holistically (myself being the latter).

At the outset, I must note that I do not defend the peculiarly modern conception of inerrancy. It is a strawman, and a most frustrating one at that, especially when the green skeptic thinks he/she has accomplished something substantively skeptical by knocking down "inerrancy." My only aim is to argue for how the text ought to be read. I do admit, as I have elsewhere (see my second post here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72933&perpage=25&pagenumber=1)), to an a priori admiration for the ancient writers and editors of the Tanak. I do not assume they were idiots, with no ability to weave complex narratives together. More often than not, certain glaring "contradictions," which make the final editors out to be practically illiterate, can be rectified by spin's own advice: "I suggest that you seek a good beginner's grammar of Hebrew to undersand the Hebrew verb system if you want to go past where you are now." Past, that is, the stage of a whelp with FRAPS.

What follows is just a suggestion of how to read Genesis 1 and 2 structurally.

Genesis 2:4a reads: "This is the account (or "generations" or "descendents") [Heb., toledot] of the heavens and the earth . . . ."

The first thing to point out is that the word toledot is signal marker for the beginning of each of the ten books of Genesis (alternatively, this may place too much emphasis on its minor characters. So, the structure of the whole book can be parsed in three: Primaeval History, 1�11; Patriarchal History, 12�36; the Joseph Story, 37ff.). The Hebrew word toledot comes from the root yld, which means "to bear children." Here the text is relating an account that pertains to what the cosmos has generated, not the generation of the cosmos.

From a literary perspective, the writer/editor takes this opportunity to weave in a dischronologized account to produce a rhetorical effect, namely, the creation of Woman. This might help us understand why the text stands in such a blatantly seeming contradiction. It is artristry, folks. Fully aware of itself. The alternative would have every scribe to have ever come in contact with this portion of the Tanak reduced to work of data entry (my apologies to the data "entreists" in our midst).

The flow is as follows: Man and animals created (2:7, 19); Animals parade in front of the vice-regent to get named (v. 19); No suitable helper is found among them (v. 20b); Deep sleep, Woman fashioned (vv. 21�22); Man wakes up and exclaims: "This one! This time! Bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh . . . !" With poetry, Adam celebrates bond of shared flesh and bone and equality of Man and Woman. In naming her "Woman," he also names himself "Man" (incidentally, this point is often overlooked by certain women critics with an axe to grind). Interestingly, while the narrator named Adam by his relation to the ground (adam . . . adama), Adam is "recorded" naming himself in relation to his wife.

Now for just an example of the structure of this pericope. Just like Days 1 and 4 of the first creation narrative, so too does the second creation narrative use a certain literary device: Repetition. In Genesis 2:8b, man is put by God in the garden. In like manner, verse 15 has the LORD God taking the man and putting him in the garden. Are these two literal occurences? Can anyone explain why a gifted writer would leave it thus if it was to be read in a modern, linear, and Western fashion?

What is being done here has been called by some "Synopsis, Resumption/Expansion." In 2:8a, we see a brief synopsis of God's planting a garden in the east. In verses 9�14, we see an expansion on that garden, complete with descriptions of its river, precious metals, etc. In 2:8b, we see a brief synopsis of God's forming man. In verses 15�25, we see a significant expansion on the pinnacle of God's fashioning (i.e., the creation of Man and Woman).

Tell me, reader, would you rather kick against the goads here, or would you rather appreciate the artistry and literary genius of (at least one) of the Genesis narrator(s)?

Regards,

CJD

Amos

January 9, 2004, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by CJD
Tell me, reader, would you rather kick against the goads here, or would you rather appreciate the artistry and literary genius of (at least one) of the Genesis narrator(s)?

Regards,

CJD

Well put and it's a beautiful story.

Here is my take on Gen.2:10-14, which is where the plan of salvation finds existence in reality.

This river here is the river of life that rises from deep within the human mind (Eden).
It divides (the fall) and become two branches.
The first river winds throughout the entire land of greed while in search for power wealth and beauty. Such is our life along the road-dust of the sun wherein our days are illuminated by the light of common day = ovblivion = lymbic system.
The second river winds throughout this same land but brings increasingly more pain, poverty and misery because there is nothing infinite about worldly richess that are attached to our lymbic system only. We take a second look at life and see the third river back in the place we first started.
The third river "rises" from the place we first left behind (East of Eden from where we went west because you can't go East from East of Eden). We return there and find ourselved to be back in Eden where the fourth river just "is" as in "I AM."
The fourth river is Eu-prhates and means "bright mind" when we have come full circle in life to arrive at the "examined life."

Jeremy Pallant

January 10, 2004, 12:35 AM

Amos, I've said this before, and I'll say it again...

What?

GakuseiDon

January 10, 2004, 06:57 AM

Keep in mind that Gen 1 says "plants" and "animals", while Gen 2 says "plants of the field" and "animals of the field". (The only exception is "birds of the air").

The Hebrew word being used is "sadeh", which means "cultivated area". Gen 2:5 says that there were no plants of the field because there'd been no rain and "no man to till the ground".

It seems like Gen 1 is the creation of all creatures, while Gen 2 is a special act of creating the domestic environment of Adam, i.e. the Garden of Eden, and what occurs there. Note also that the only domesticated animal mentioned created in Gen 1 (cattle) are NOT apparently created in Gen 2.

So God creates the world in Gen 1, and THEN creates the Garden of Eden in Gen 2. They are two creation accounts, but they refer to the creation of different things. Therefore, no contradiction. The contradiction only comes about when someone tries to claim that both Gen 1 and Gen 2 are both referring to the same event, i.e. the initial creation of the universe.

(Ed to add: I also think Gen 2 is used to explain how domesticed animals and others that the ancient Hebrews were familiar with came to be named. All the domesticated creatures and the birds were brought before Adam to be named. Not every animal in the world was named - just the ones the AH would have been in contact with. Thus, it wouldn't have been a surprise that they didn't know the names of any exotic animals that they came across later)

CyberShy

January 10, 2004, 07:56 AM

I'll post here what I have posted in another thread as well.

--------------------------------------------------------
Gen 1 / Gen 2 creation stories:

First I want to make clear that I do not insist that the creation should be token literary. 6 days might be a poetic / structured form of telling the story. On the other hand, it may be literary though.

But that's not the point of this debate.
People say Gen2 conflicts Gen1 because of:
A. Chronology
B. The name used for God

ad A.
1. first take a close look at the verse 7/8
in 7 man has been created, in 8 God puts man into a garden which he creates. Notice: God creates the gardan after man.
The fact that God plants a garden (he doesn't create it) requires the concept of 'garden' already to exist.
The trees talked about in verse 9 aren't trees in general.
They're the trees that God plants in the garden (verse 8)
Conclusion: the fact that verse 9 (trees) come after verse 7(man) doesn't mean that according to gen2 trees came after man. It only concludes that the trees in the garden of eden came after man. Besidest that it concludes that the concept of 'tree' already existed before God created the garden.
Since there's no chronological notification in gen2 about the creation of 'trees' between verse 7 and 8/9 we can either conclude that the gen2 account is not chronological (which would end the debate and the conflict with gen1) or we conclude that the creation of the 'trees' was left out of the gen2 account (which ends the debate and the conflict as well) or we conclude that the creation of the 'trees' must appear earlier (which ends the debate / conflict) or later in the account, but since that's not the case this possibility has to be abandoned.

Another overal conclusion that can be made is that gen2 is not about the creation of the earth / everything, but rather is an account of the 'creation' of the garden of Eden, and the position of man in that garden.

2. The conclusion of ad A1 can only be made if verse 4-6 can be explained, for sure since appear to happen before verse 7 (creation of man)

If we read carefully ("These are the generations of [...] every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.") we can see that the concept of plant or herb was already existant when man (verse 7) was created.

The thing with plants/herbs is that they
a. either didn't grow yet, but were created. (but for some reason not yet implemented) or were implemented as a seed but didn't grow yet. The last part of the 5th verse implies that they were created but didn't grow yet for man didn't till the ground yet.
Imagine that man did till the ground, the verse implies that in that case the plants would already have growed.

b. these verses rather belong the first creation story (gen1) than to the 2nd story. (it's a conclusion to the creation of gen1)

c. If there is chronology in gen2 then verse 6 implies that the watering / raining that didn't happen until verse 5 happens in verse 6. For story telling purposes this must mean that the plants / herbs of verse 5 started to grow in verse 6.
And verse 6 chronologically happens before verse 5, if you wish to take gen 2 chronologically.

Conclusion: Gen 2 is not in conflict with Gen 1.
Gen 2 is rather a conclusion to gen 1 (what happened to man after he was created, answer: he went into a garden that was planted by God after the creation. And what happened with the plants after the creation; answer: they started to grow, but not before the mist from the earth watered the ground)

B. The different names of God / plural / singular God.

This is not a contradiction.
When God talks, he talks in the plural form "Let us make man in our image"
But in Gen1, when talked about God in the 2nd person, it's singular. Which is the case in gen2 as well.

Besides that, in gen1 God is called 'God' but in gen2 he's called 'The Lord God'. This is a. a different name b. containing the first name c. gen2 is talking about what happened with man after creation. And of course to man God is 'The Lord God'. That last (c) explanation is just a speculative explanation.

Doctor X

January 10, 2004, 09:43 AM

GD:

The contradiction only comes about when someone tries to claim that both Gen 1 and Gen 2 are both referring to the same event, i.e. the initial creation of the universe.

Neither deal with the "initial creation of the universe." Both myths deal with the reordering of the world; the establishment of "the world as we know it." That having been clarified the myths do, indeed, refer to the same event as demonstrated above.

CyberShy:

As above, two different myths stitched together.

En passant:

This is not a contradiction.
When God talks, he talks in the plural form "Let us make man in our image"
But in Gen1, when talked about God in the 2nd person, it's singular. Which is the case in gen2 as well.

There is no "royal we" in Hebrew. "Us" refers to the "other gods." The monotheism that develops is more of a "our god is better/greater than your god" then "there be only one."

Elohim is "gods" but when used by the P writer it tries to "monotheize" the concept in this manner. YHWH is used by the J writer.

Much simpler.

--J.D.

CyberShy

January 10, 2004, 09:59 AM

Doctor X: Neither deal with the "initial creation of the universe." Both myths deal with the reordering of the world

Read closer ;)
In gen1 the stars are made. This includes the planets etc.
Thus: in gen1 the initial creation of the universe is told about.

gen2 deals with an already established earth on which the garden of Eden is planted, with trees (etc) that didn't have to be invented but just only had to grow. (al I explained in my post which you ignored for 95% ;))

Doctor X: That having been clarified the myths do, indeed, refer to the same event as demonstrated above.

Repeating the same argument doesn't make it true ;)
For sure not if new arguments against such an argument have been made, and been ignored.

There is no "royal we" in Hebrew. "Us" refers to the "other gods."

Or it refers to a plural God, which is consistant with the rest of the Bible. Of course that's interpertation, but so is your explanation.

If you interpertate two stories in such a way that they contradict each other, than not the stories contradict each other, but your interpertation of the stories do conflict.

Doctor X

January 10, 2004, 10:08 AM

Read closer
In gen1 the stars are made. This includes the planets etc.
Thus: in gen1 the initial creation of the universe is told about.

A close reading would indicate that the "waters of the deep" exists prior to the time. It would also indicate that the verb was initially understood--and used in other parts of the OT--as "cut" as in "separate."

gen2 deals with an already established earth on which the garden of Eden is planted, with trees (etc) that didn't have to be invented but just only had to grow. (al I explained in my post which you ignored for 95% )

Easier to demonstrate a false assumption than to hew the poison'd results of said false assumption.

Repeating the same argument doesn't make it true

This would then remove your remaining 5%.

For sure not if new arguments against such an argument have been made, and been ignored.

Your work is both original and good. Unfortunately that which is good is not original and that which is original is not good.

--Samuel Johnson

you have offered no new arguments that address the Documentary Hypothesis.

Or it refers to a plural God, which is consistant with the rest of the Bible.

YHWH is presented in a rather singular fashion.

Of course that's interpertation (sic), but so is your explanation.

Ipse dixit and, unfortunately, incorrect.

If you interpertate two stories in such a way that they contradict each other, than not the stories contradict each other, but your interpertation of the stories do conflict.

It remains merely apology to make two separate stories which different details harmonious.

--J.D.

CyberShy

January 10, 2004, 10:24 AM

A close reading would indicate that the "waters of the deep" exists prior to the time.

which is a true assumption. Verse 1 reads that God created the heaven and the earth 'in the beginning'
The 6 days continue on that creation. But when God created heaven and earth, the universe as we know it didn't exist yet.

The creation of the earth apparently included the waters, which were indeed seperated during the '6 days'.

Easier to demonstrate a false assumption than to hew the poison'd results of said false assumption.

Easier to respond with some cheap philosophy that completely ignores the argument than admit that one is wrong ;)

This would then remove your remaining 5%.

Indeed, right now you have ignored a complete 100% of my argumentation. Oh wait, that's not true, your first argument was indeed a very valid counter-argument.

That said, I have to disagree with you on this as well: You reacted to at least 10% of my argumentation this time! you're in progress! Keep up the good work :D

you have offered no new arguments that address the Documentary Hypothesis.

But fortunately you have ignored so many of my old arguments that new ones aren't needed. I'll give you a little help, why don't you explain why I'm wrong on gen2 dealing with the planing of the garden of eden rather than the '6 day period'.

YHWH is presented in a rather singular fashion.

He apparently is not in gen1, in which he's presented at least in a dual fashion (his spirit, which is over the waters, and his speaking fashion whom's word speaks and it is)

But you are right that God is presented both in a plural as a singular fashion in the Bible. This is explained by his one-being being seperated in 3 entities.

That's dogma indeed, but it isn't a contradiction.

Ipse dixit and, unfortunately, incorrect.

Of course in a good rational debate the explanation follows after the qualification. But again you can come no further than the qualification. That we disagree with each other is a fact. But if this thread is only devoted to that fact, and we keep spending time on it, it's a waste of time. Thus let's honor rationality instead of blatant atheistic fundamentalism, and explain your opinion instead of just stating it as being true because you think so.

It remains merely apology to make two separate stories which different details harmonious.

It's not an apology but an explanation.
And even after your post the explanation still stands.
Not because of the quality of your counter-arguments, but rather because of the lack of them.

I have to compliment you with your words. You're able to give well written reactions!
I have to discompliment you with the content though.
You didn't say much, unfortunately :(

CyberShy

Doctor X

January 10, 2004, 11:14 AM

An report of a fact is not an assumption.

Verse 1 reads that God created the heaven and the earth 'in the beginning'

At the time when Elohim separated the heavens from the earth the earth was without form and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the waters of the deep, and a divine wind was moving over the surface of the water.

The "waters of the deep" pre-exist the separation of the heavens from the earth.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Easier to respond with some cheap philosophy that completely ignores the argument than admit that one is wrong

while the individual may, indeed, find this "easier" it is not scholarship, and he would do well to cease reliance upon it.

Indeed, right now you have ignored a complete 100% of my argumentation.

"Quality, not quantity," to paraphrase Cla . . . Cla . . . Claudius.

But fortunately you have ignored so many of my old arguments that new ones aren't needed.

"Quality, not quantity." As noted, when one tries to build a house of cards over faulty assumptions, one does not need to deal with each individual card when the fautly assumptions are removed.

It will recognize the failure to confront the Documentary Hypothesis.

Quod erat demonstrandum times two. . . .

But you are right that God is presented both in a plural as a singular fashion in the Bible. This is explained by his one-being being seperated in 3 entities.

Ipse dixit and not supported by the texts, unfortunately. I refer, again, to the Documentary Hypothesis.

Of course in a good rational debate the explanation follows after the qualification. Rage Howl Bluster Injur'd Merit "True Heir to the Throne" Thus let's honor rationality instead of blatant atheistic fundamentalism, Rant Rave Bowl of Porridge and explain your opinion instead of just stating it as being true because you think so.

See reference to the Documentary Hypothesis above which, oddly enough, is not "blatant atheistic fundamentalism." I will leave it to less kind men to dissect that fallacy.

Moi: It remains merely apology to make two separate stories which different details harmonious.

It's not an apology but an explanation.
And even after your post the explanation still stands.

Ipse dixit and, unfortunately, wrong. I refer again, with some redundancy in its repetitiveness, to the Documentary Hypothesis.

Perchance some color would help: Documentary Hypothesis

Mayhaps this: Documentary Hypothesis

Not because of the quality of your counter-arguments, but rather because of the lack of them.

That the individual fails to read or consider the current state of scholarship remains his error:

Moi: There is no "royal we" in Hebrew. "Us" refers to the "other gods." The monotheism that develops is more of a "our god is better/greater than your god" then "there be only one."

Elohim is "gods" but when used by the P writer it tries to "monotheize" the concept in this manner. YHWH is used by the J writer.

Much simpler.

Quod erat demonstrandum times four. . . .

You didn't say much, unfortunately

If the individual would open his eyes he may, indeed, see.

--J.D.

[Edited to redact to the Textus Recepticus.--Ed.]

Amaleq13

January 10, 2004, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by CyberShy
But you are right that God is presented both in a plural as a singular fashion in the Bible. This is explained by his one-being being seperated in 3 entities.

That's dogma indeed, but it isn't a contradiction.

It appears to contain a contradiction (i.e. one-being cannot, by definition, equal 3 separate entities). This is not an explanation, it is a belief.

Thus let's honor rationality instead of blatant atheistic fundamentalism, and explain your opinion instead of just stating it as being true because you think so.

"Quid pro quo, Clarice." - Hannibal Lector:D

Please honor rationality and explain your belief that God can be both singular and separated in 3 entities.

Doctor X

January 10, 2004, 11:40 AM

HANNIBAL LECTOR IS GOD!!! [Stop that!--Ed.]

Right . . . sorry . . . carry on. . . .

--J.D.

CyberShy

January 10, 2004, 12:31 PM

Doctor X,

"Quality, not quantity," to paraphrase Cla . . . Cla . . . Claudius.

A true thing, but your response lacks both quality and quantity.
You haven't countered my explanation about the differences between gen1 and gen2. All you did was starting a discussion about the question if the universe was created during the '6 days' or not.

I followed you into that discussion as a rookie, but discovered it late, but not too late.
Let's get back on topic:

gen1 is the creation of earth, plants, trees and human.
gen2 is about placing human in the garden of Eden, and growing plants, trees in this garden.

As noted, when one tries to build a house of cards over faulty assumptions, one does not need to deal with each individual card when the fautly assumptions are removed.

As I have complimented you already, your knowledge about discussion is good. Now apply it!
You haven't countered any of my cards, so the house still stands.

Besides that, I have given several possible explanations that can stand next to each other. In fact there are many houses, not one.
And the one you tried to collapse hasn't collapsed since you removed a card that wasn't a part of the house. (while I still even disagree that you removed it, but let's cease that off topic discussion)

I refer, again, to the Documentary Hypothesis.

which is indeed a valid explanation to this case as well.

Amaleq13:

i.e. one-being cannot, by definition, equal 3 separate entities

The USA is one 'country' but it consists of more states.
God apparently consists of more entities. We're just not familiar with the being of 'God'. If there is a God (which is not the current discussion topic) then the nature of this God can't be captured within the borders of our limitations.

Doctor X

January 10, 2004, 12:48 PM

A true thing, but your response lacks both quality and quantity.

Fortunately, one does not have to rely upon this individual as a judge of taste.

You haven't countered my explanation about the differences between gen1 and gen2.

Ipse dixit and wrong.

All you did was starting a discussion about the question if the universe was created during the '6 days' or not.

I demonstrated that the individual did not understand the myth he based his assumptions upon.

As for the "return to the topic" is dealt with the competing creation myths. This has been addressed previously if the individual would kindly read the entire thread.

You haven't countered any of my cards, so the house still stands.

Internment of digits into the depths of the acoustic meatii does not a response make.

Further claims about the sturdiness of his domicle follow which prove irrelevant to the discussion.

Moi: I refer, again, to the Documentary Hypothesis.

. . . which is indeed a valid explanation to this case as well.

since it does not require apologetic misunderstanding of the texts I am forced to consider it more pursuassive than the individual's. Should he wish to rebuild his domicile he must demonstrate where the DH is wrong and why his explanation works better. He has thus far failed in his attempts with the later whilst ignoring the former.

Whilst Amaleq13 does not require my assistance, one should assist in "bringing the puppy to the paper" to maintain proper feng shue:

The USA is one 'country' but it consists of more states.

False analogy.

The anthropomorphic representations would force one to render this as "an individual is one 'body' but it consists of more . . . er . . . well."

God apparently consists of more entities. We're just not familiar with the being of 'God'. If there is a God (which is not the current discussion topic) then the nature of this God can't be captured within the borders of our limitations.

Appeals to ignorance do not work either. We apparently can, and do, try to understand the writers' conceptions of their deities. They changed over time.

--J.D.

CyberShy

January 10, 2004, 12:55 PM

Doctor X, your talent to avoid the debate and come with irrelevant lines is huge! I hope some people might come who can do more than you do......... which is coming with arguments ;)

Amos

January 10, 2004, 01:04 PM

Hello Jeremy, I don't know if you are serious or not but I will elaborate because there is a lot more to say on this parable.

Earlier in this thread I proposed that Gen.1 describes how the essence of existence is created and that the fall of creation (including the fall of man) was already created in verse 3 with the arrival of darkness in the mind of creation. This situation was reversed when temporal darkness was removed and so it was that eternal life was conceived on the seventh day in Gen. 2. The point here is that if life is created ex nihilo in Gen.1 with "God said" it must also be conceived to exist before it can become the life force of the living. Hence the "God said" is replaced with the word "thus" on the seventh day = the onset of motion . . . and therefore "a river rises in Eden" (verse 10).

This river divides into four branches to outline the journey of life.

The first division is the division of man's mind and represents the fall of man. These two rivers show how man, now as human, will search all over the world for power, wealth and beauty and he will do this to find a sense of identity while outside of Eden where life is temporal (as was promised later in Gen. 3 "you will know that you will die"). The first river is called Pishon (probably for good reason) because that is where riches are found (daylight). The second river is called Gihon and this is where worldly riches prove to be less satisfying than we expected (evening) and so it is that between these two rivers we journey along between pleasure and pain because evening always follows to cast a shadow of doubt upon our day (to make dreaming possible as seen from a different plain wherein pain is the actual curse).

Far and wide these rivers will go and we will journey as if we are without a homeland but with a homing instinct nonetheless because we once left Eden behind. It must be the curse that is driving us and so it must be a curse to be driven by the curse or the serpent would not have been cursed. :confused: I mean, really, isn't it bad enough that we are cursed but must we be driven by the curse? (try telling Bush that, b:( )

Of course it is a necessity or we'd be having ivory towers outside of Eden and that wouldn't be fair to Eden. (I'll drop this here but one must wonder how they ended up in Rome :)).

So first it was greed and later the pain and finally the curse that drives us in life and if our days get dark enough and our nights get long enough we might look back upon our journey of life and see that same river again that we first left behind; "back home" this is, and if we can muster the courage to go there and give an account of ourselves we will find that the land of our birth outlined here as between the Tigris and Euphrates is found in our own mind.

And more to follow if you have any questions.

spin

January 10, 2004, 01:41 PM

This is all pretty degrading stuff that has little to do with the thread.

Amaleq13, please shut up about the trinity here.

CyberShy, please read the text and not read into it.

In the day when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field hade yet sprung up -- for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth and there was no-one to till the ground -- then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground... You know, while there was still no plants or herbs, God made man. You can fix many of your errors by simply reading the text.

This is not what the text indicates: "gen2 is about placing human in the garden of Eden, and growing plants, trees in this garden"

Amos, what the hell are you trying to say? No, don't answer that. It will probably be still further incomprehensible.

spin

Amaleq13

January 10, 2004, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by spin
please shut up about the trinity here.

Bite me, you moderator wannabe.:D

That said, I think Doctor X's reply makes additional comment unnecessary.

CyberShy

January 10, 2004, 01:58 PM

Spin, the KJ translation says:
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."

Thus, your word "when" (in "when no plant of the field") and your word "then" (in "then the Lord God formed man") do not appear in the text. I'm not sure what translation you use, but the KJ is as close as you can come to the hebrew text. (and it does reflect the dutch 'statenvertaling' about 100%, which is know for it's accuracy as well)

Amos

January 10, 2004, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by spin

Amos, what the hell are you trying to say? No, don't answer that. It will probably be still further incomprehensible.

spin

Well spin I am just trying to put things together for you.

So why did you think the seventh day did not need a "God said" and why was the serpent cursed if not for our benefit?

Perhaps most of all, why must Jews be without a land of their own?

Amos

January 10, 2004, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by CyberShy
know for it's accuracy as well)

. . . in Nederland, bedoel je zeker wel.

rlogan

January 10, 2004, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by CyberShy
Doctor X, your talent to avoid the debate and come with irrelevant lines is huge! I hope some people might come who can do more than you do......... which is coming with arguments ;)

Hi Cybershy. I would suggest taking a look at this:

documentary hypothesis at Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis)

Read the links too, and by golly even order "Who wrote the Bible".

Dr. X and Spin suffer from the affliction of additional knowledge that is brought to bear on the subject. Please forgive them for the moment and get an introduction to the documentary hypothesis so that you see the big picture first.

You need to view Genesis within the context of what is known about the entire pentateuch, OT, and the history of the region. I think if you just establish an attitude of "OK I'll follow this reasoning just for purposes of argument" then you will be able to do the next thing Spin is suggesting - read what is actually written without "reading into".

Next, drop a couple of hits of blotter, down a shot of everclear and roll up a big fattie - and you'll understand everything Amos is saying...

GakuseiDon

January 10, 2004, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Doctor X
[b]GD:
The contradiction only comes about when someone tries to claim that both Gen 1 and Gen 2 are both referring to the same event, i.e. the initial creation of the universe.

Neither deal with the "initial creation of the universe." Both myths deal with the reordering of the world; the establishment of "the world as we know it."
Which is exactly what I said. Gen 1 looks at the general establishment of everything. Gen 2 looks at the establishment of the first field at the Garden of Eden.

Now, they may have been started as two entirely separate myths, as per JEDP. But they have been stitched together, in such a way that they don't necessarily form any contradiction.

Why are they called "animals" and "plants" in Gen 1, but "animals of the field" and "plants of the field" in Gen 2, straight after God had put Adam into the Garden to till the ground? Sounds like they are referring to different things, at least to me. And if they are referring to different things, that makes it hard to compare them to show any contradiction.

Wouldn't you say that Gen 1 refers to the general ordering of the world, and Gen 2 refers to the domestication of man's environment?

spin

January 10, 2004, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by CyberShy
Spin, the KJ translation says:
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."

Thus, your word "when" (in "when no plant of the field") and your word "then" (in "then the Lord God formed man") do not appear in the text. I'm not sure what translation you use, but the KJ is as close as you can come to the hebrew text. (and it does reflect the dutch 'statenvertaling' about 100%, which is know for it's accuracy as well)

Things don't translate so nicely as one would like it into an Indo-European language, for we like more temporal connections.

We have the earth with nothing in it, as plants and herbs were not there (the text says: every plant before it was on the earth [+RM YHYH H-'RC], and every herb of the field before it grew [+RM YCMX]), nor man to work the ground (ie to make things grow).

First thing that happens according to the narrative is a mist coming up from the earth which moistened the whole ground. This event in which the ground was moistened is a necessary condition for the formation of man, for without that mist you would have no starting material. There is still nothing that grows.

God uses the moistened earth to make man. First act of creation according to the narrative and the narrative is all the reader has to fo on. The text is clear at this point. Everything that comes is subsequent according to the narrative, the planting of the garden the formation of the trees out of the ground. Then still later he formed animals out of the ground.

Now you might like to claim that he only made trees in the garden and although the narrative doesn't talk about other trees God made them before. The text simply doesn't allow you to make that conclusion. The text provides us with these facts:

1, out of the ground God formed man, 2:7
2, out of the ground he formed trees, 2:9
3, out of the ground he formed animals, 2:19

Note, same method in narrative order. This gives you an order of events. If you don't like that you can fiddle with the text, but you fiddle alone.

spin

spin

January 10, 2004, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
Which is exactly what I said. Gen 1 looks at the general establishment of everything. Gen 2 looks at the establishment of the first field at the Garden of Eden.

Now, they may have been started as two entirely separate myths, as per JEDP. But they have been stitched together, in such a way that they don't necessarily form any contradiction.

Oh, GakuseiDon, isn't it just so important that they don't form any contradiction?

Well, just think a little Creation account number one is from a wet world (fine for Mesopotamia with its nasty flooding), yet in account number two, the world is a totally dry one (fine for dry old Palestine).

Now notice the way God creates in the two different accounts. In the first it is sufficient to say something and it happens. In the second God has to get down to the dirt to make things happen. If you didn't know any better you'd think that we were dealing with two different gods, one who only needed to conceive the idea and it would take form and the other who had to get his hands dirty.

We have two different accounts from two different sources and there is no need for them to be in accord.

Why are they called "animals" and "plants" in Gen 1, but "animals of the field" and "plants of the field" in Gen 2, straight after God had put Adam into the Garden to till the ground? Sounds like they are referring to different things, at least to me. And if they are referring to different things, that makes it hard to compare them to show any contradiction.

Perhaps they were in fact two different gods, using this logic. They have different names, Elohim and YHWH Elohim.

2:5 makes it clear that there was nothing on this earth. You accept that the accounts come from two different sources and "stitched together"; you should be aware that different writers use different terms, even for the same thing, as in Elohim and YHWH Elohim, and every winged bird of every kind (1:21) and every bird of the sky (2:19).

Wouldn't you say that Gen 1 refers to the general ordering of the world, and Gen 2 refers to the domestication of man's environment?

If you don't read the text you could.

Back to the drawing board, GakuseiDon, and stop making desperate distinctions.

spin

Doctor X

January 11, 2004, 02:53 AM

Unable to confront the scholarship and evidence for multi-authorship, the individual runs about the room whining:

Doctor X, your talent to avoid the debate and come with irrelevant lines is huge!

Apparently, having his confession of faith dash'd constitute "avoidance of debate."

To Reiterate:

1. The Individual fails to read the posts previous to his flights of fancy.
2. The Individual misrepresents the texts.
3. The Individual ducks any discussion of the current scholarship of the formation of the Pentateuch.
4. The Individual ignores the arguments of previous posters that demonstrate his attempt to harmonize the myths is mere apologetics.
5. The Individual becomes petulent when exposed.

Others have generously attempted to direct the Individual to understanding. Unfortunately, [Cue Violins.--Ed.] these kind entreaties have fallen upon deaf eyes.

GD:

Spin rather answers your question. The contradictions persist. Now whoever the Redactor was--the guy(s) who put the text together--he/they probably did, indeed, intend such apologetics or he/they did not consider the contradictions that disturbing. I tend towards the later because he/they left far more curious contradictions--like the name of the gods or obvious contradictory doublets. Now, Friedman would argue that the reason a Redactor could not effect a better "clean-up" is that the texts/traditions were probably well enough known to prevent it.

Now . . . now Spin:

Methinks Amaleq13 sens'd in the Individual's appeal to a multi-person deity:

But you are right that God is presented both in a plural as a singular fashion in the Bible. This is explained by his one-being being seperated in 3 entities.

That's dogma indeed, but it isn't a contradiction.

He correctly recognizes that this apology is extra-biblical.

--J.D.

GakuseiDon

January 11, 2004, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by spin
Oh, GakuseiDon, isn't it just so important that they don't form any contradiction?
I'm not an inerrantist, spin.

Well, just think a little Creation account number one is from a wet world (fine for Mesopotamia with its nasty flooding), yet in account number two, the world is a totally dry one (fine for dry old Palestine).

Now notice the way God creates in the two different accounts. In the first it is sufficient to say something and it happens. In the second God has to get down to the dirt to make things happen. If you didn't know any better you'd think that we were dealing with two different gods, one who only needed to conceive the idea and it would take form and the other who had to get his hands dirty.
No problem.

We have two different accounts from two different sources and there is no need for them to be in accord.
No need for them to contradict, either, which is the question. The question isn't "are those passages from different sources", but "in the final form of the Bible that we have, do they contradict?"

2:5 makes it clear that there was nothing on this earth. You accept that the accounts come from two different sources and "stitched together"; you should be aware that different writers use different terms, even for the same thing, as in Elohim and YHWH Elohim, and every winged bird of every kind (1:21) and every bird of the sky (2:19).
So you are saying that, even though different words are used, they are referring to the same thing??? Wouldn't you blast an apologist who said something like that?

Given the focus in Gen 2 on things of the field, and the description of man tilling the ground, and the meaning of the Hebrew word used as "cultivated land", I would like to see you back that up.

Back to the drawing board, GakuseiDon, and stop making desperate distinctions.
What distinctions? I'm still interested in the answer to my question: Wouldn't you say that Gen 1 refers to the general ordering of the world, and Gen 2 refers to the domestication of man's environment? And if they are referring to different things, how can there be contradiction?

GakuseiDon

January 11, 2004, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by Doctor X
Spin rather answers your question. The contradictions persist. Now whoever the Redactor was--the guy(s) who put the text together--he/they probably did, indeed, intend such apologetics or he/they did not consider the contradictions that disturbing. I tend towards the later because he/they left far more curious contradictions--like the name of the gods or obvious contradictory doublets.
Multiple editors left inconsistancies in the finalised form of the Bible, but not necessarily contradictions. How is Gen 1 using "Elohim" and Gen 2 using "YHWH" a contradiction? I don't see it.

Wouldn't you say that Gen 1 refers to the general ordering of the world, and Gen 2 refers to the domestication of man's environment?

Doctor X

January 11, 2004, 04:59 AM

GD:

Not to write for spin but I do not see that:

I'm still interested in the answer to my question: Wouldn't you say that Gen 1 refers to the general ordering of the world, and Gen 2 refers to the domestication of man's environment?

If the Redactor wanted that specifically, I think he would have cleaned up the contradictions--fixed the sequences. I rather think they did not bother him. As I noted, the Redactor preserves some much more contradictory doublets--like "Amos is a butthead" versus "Amos is more important than Moses" to be overly simplistic. It requires apologetic acrobatics that makes reconciling the Genesis stories seem reasonable. My point with that is that the Redactor preserved those clear contradictions so, methinks, the Genesis contradictions did not seem so disturbing.

--J.D.

Doctor X

January 11, 2004, 05:01 AM

We cross post'd.

The creation sequences are contradictory. Poor Eve . . . first dust then a rib.

I allude to more extreme contradictions in the Pentateuch.

--J.D.

GakuseiDon

January 11, 2004, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by Doctor X
The creation sequences are contradictory. Poor Eve . . . first dust then a rib.
Doc, you seem to be saying that Gen 1 using "Elohim" and Gen 2 using "YHWH" is a contradiction. How is that?

Also, where is the contradiction showing Eve being formed from dust on one hand, and a rib on the other?

Amos

January 11, 2004, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by Doctor X
[ As I noted, the Redactor preserves some much more contradictory doublets--like "Amos is a butthead" versus "Amos is more important than Moses" to be overly simplistic. --J.D.

But the Redactor knew you would be coming along to pick sides and hid the truth so you'r be faced with the apparent contradiction that you may also search for some truth in life.

Amos

January 11, 2004, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by Doctor X
We cross post'd.

The creation sequences are contradictory. Poor Eve . . . first dust then a rib.

--J.D.

I can see why you think she should be allowed to vote.

spin

January 11, 2004, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
I'm not an inerrantist, spin.

Fine. Why do you struggle against logic to get rid of contradictions?

Originally posted by spin
We have two different accounts from two different sources and there is no need for them to be in accord.

Posted by GakuseiDon
No need for them to contradict, either, which is the question. The question isn't "are those passages from different sources", but "in the final form of the Bible that we have, do they contradict?"

You are being parsimonious with your language. Can they or can they not contradict each other according to your thought??

Originally posted by spin
2:5 makes it clear that there was nothing on this earth. You accept that the accounts come from two different sources and "stitched together"; you should be aware that different writers use different terms, even for the same thing, as in Elohim and YHWH Elohim, and every winged bird of every kind (1:21) and every bird of the sky (2:19).

Posted by GakuseiDon
So you are saying that, even though different words are used, they are referring to the same thing??? Wouldn't you blast an apologist who said something like that?

The reason why I chose birds in the above is so that you cannot claim that the references can be different, unless you are prepared to go to preposterous lengths to allow them to refer to different things, as the two terms map very closely -- the best you can hope for is a minimal content of non-overlap, while they overlap greatly enough to show that they have the same reference in mind -- all birds.

Posted by GakuseiDon
Given the focus in Gen 2 on things of the field,

But that is not the focus: it is the means of description.

Posted by GakuseiDon
and the description of man tilling the ground, and the meaning of the Hebrew word used as "cultivated land", I would like to see you back that up.

No, the Hebrew word does not mean "cultivated land". 'DMH, means "land or earth" and comes from 'DM, meaning "red" ie the colour of earth.

Posted by GakuseiDon
What distinctions? I'm still interested in the answer to my question: Wouldn't you say that Gen 1 refers to the general ordering of the world, and Gen 2 refers to the domestication of man's environment?

No. The text talks not of "man's environment" but of what God created when he created the earth and the heavens. We are dealing not with some local creation, but clearly introduced with a toledoth of the creation of the earth and the heavens.

And before there were plants and herbs on the earth, God created man. Why on earth don't you read what the text says, GakuseiDon? You claim that you are not an inerrantist, yet you create absurd distinctions, so as to allow the texts not to contradict. I wish you would clarify why you need to do this dance.

Posted by GakuseiDon
And if they are referring to different things, how can there be contradiction?

As the birds clearly refer to the same thing despite the difference in statement (you can do the same in English, given the object of "create" as "all avian species" and "all winged birds", the intent should clearly be the same), statements that contain them can clearly contradict each other. We are told that birds were created before man in the first creation account, yet we are told that they were created after man in the second. Here we have a contradiction.

Is it worth all the effort to struggle over something that most non inerrantists already know? ie that the two creation accounts contradict each other and that was no problem even for the particular redactors. As the texts were sacred, they left them as is.

spin

CyberShy

January 11, 2004, 10:20 AM

Amos: . . . in Nederland, bedoel je zeker wel.

yup ;)

rlogan: Hi Cybershy. I would suggest taking a look at this:

documentary hypothesis at Wiki

Read the links too, and by golly even order "Who wrote the Bible".

Dr. X and Spin suffer from the affliction of additional knowledge that is brought to bear on the subject.

thanks for your help.
The thing is not that I lack knowledge on the subject.
The thing is that I see no reason to bring the documentary hypothesis in this discussion.

The only thing it shows is that, according to the hypothesis, different authors have written Genesis. Which might be the reason that gen1 and gen2 use different names for God.
But this topic is not about the reason behind this. We try to discover if this is a inner biblical contradiction.

If the letter of Paul contradicts the letter of John, then it makes no sence to come up with the "Both letters are by different authors" argument either. The Bible should be consistent, eventhough it has many authors. And that's what this discussion is about.

I think it's more that doctor x is keen on showing his knowledge, his inteligence and his wisdom, rather than finding the truth.
I hope the guy is joking, but in fact I can't see much difference between his way of argumentating and the way orthodox christians debate. Speaking from a certain truth that should be teached to others while they already have all knowledge.

In fact I can see more and more simularities between old-fashioned christian doctrine and modern-atheism-doctrine.

Please forgive them for the moment

Forgiving is the duty of a christian ;)

then you will be able to do the next thing Spin is suggesting - read what is actually written without "reading into".

An argument people are used to use against people with another opinion.
As I said, I'm very used in debating with (very) orhodox christians (you would say fundies) and they have the same style of reasoning. If one explains the text in a way they disagree with, they immediately come up with the "You are reading it into the text" argument. Of course people with different opinions think that the other party is 'reading into the text'.
I think it's rather ignorant to voice that, eventhough I have to admit that I think about spin the same thing. I must say thouth that I like the reasoning of spin so far very well. He comes with arguments and doesn't speak from a certain hight. Thank God for spin to argument with :D

But a rational debate is not about qualifying the way one found the arguments, but morely about disqualifying the argument itself. For much 'fundies' that's difficult. And I'm pleased to see that this is not a fundie problem, but a human problem. (or one could say that much atheists are fundies as well) (save the 'good ones' ;) )

thanks for your help though! It's appreciated.

spin: Things don't translate so nicely as one would like it into an Indo-European language, for we like more temporal connections.

Of course that's true. Every translation we have will always be fallable. But I think the KJ Bible is well-known for it's accuracy. As been said before, it's as close as wel will get. In another topic I read that 'atheists' blamed 'fundies' for blaming the translation. I would say: if 'they' can't do it, then you can't either.

So I want to study this passage again from the KJ Bible.

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day (yowm) that the Lord God made
- the earth
- and the heavens
- and every plant in the field before it was in the earth
- and every herb of the field before it grew.

This part speaks about 'the day' (yowm) in which God made [list]
the plants and herbs are included in this list.
Thus: God created these plants / herbs on this day.

Followed by an explanation why were the plants / herbs created, but not yet growing / coming up from the earth.
The explanation is that there was no man to till the ground.

Thus: there was a day in which herbs and plants were created, though they didn't grow / come out of the earth yet. This day was before there was any man. (I'll follow your style of reasoning now: ;)) why don't you just read the text? This is what it says. I'm not reading into the text, I'm just ordening it in the list (of creations), the day (period) and the chronology (create day list before man).

The problem lies in the thing that the plants/herbs apparently were created, but not yet growed.
You can either say that
a. the plants started to grow after man till the ground
b. the plants started to grow after the mist came out of the earth.

But since gen2 makes no mention of man tilling the ground before the plants started to grow, that option would be reading into.
It even says that God made the plants grow in Eden, not man.

For that reason verse 6 must be the explanation. Verse 5 claims that there was no water for the plants to grow. (no rain, nor man tilled the ground (to water it)) but then God waters it Himself in verse 6.

But even if you disagree with that you cannot deny that verse 4 and 5 speak about the creation of plants before the creation of man.

This event in which the ground was moistened is a necessary condition for the formation of man, for without that mist you would have no starting material. There is still nothing that grows

that's reading into the text.

God uses the moistened earth to make man.

reading into

God uses the moistened earth to make man. First act of creation according to the narrative and the narrative is all the reader has to fo on. The text is clear at this point. Everything that comes is subsequent according to the narrative, the planting of the garden the formation of the trees out of the ground. Then still later he formed animals out of the ground.

verse 8 and 9 are talking about the planting of the garden of Eden. About growing trees out of the ground in this garden, and putting the special trees in the mids of the garden.
It doesn't talk about creating trees!

The 8th and 9th verses are about man being putted in the garden of Eden. Do you deny that? If so, why do you deny that while it's mentioned?

1. I bought a car
2. I painted the chairs red
3. I putted a new steer in my new bought car

If there is no mention about another car, everyone will assume that the new bought car has been painted red.
Verse 8 and 9 are simular.

1. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden
2. and there he put the man whom he had formed.
3. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food
4. the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

1,2 and 4 are about the garden of Eden, for it's mentioned.
3 does indeed not mention the garden of Eden.
Does that make you conclude that 3 is not about the garden of Eden?

Now you might like to claim that he only made trees in the garden and although the narrative doesn't talk about other trees God made them before. The text simply doesn't allow you to make that conclusion.

verse 7 and 9 indeed don't allow me.
But verse 4 and 5 do.

These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made (...) every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew (...) and there was not a man to till the ground.

2, out of the ground he formed trees, 2:9

But trees are formed out of the ground every day. But they're not created anymore. They grow because the ground has been watered and tilled.
I am a man, but I'm not a creation of God.
I'm a result of (micro) evolution through the generation of God's creation. God never created a blanc man. He created black man.

And like God grows trees out of the ground every day, He did in the garden of Eden. That's what this passage focus' on.
Everything else is reading into it. (yeah, I like that style of argumentating ;))

spin

January 11, 2004, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by spin
Things don't translate so nicely as one would like it into an Indo-European language, for we like more temporal connections.

Originally posted by CyberShy
Of course that's true. Every translation we have will always be fallable.

It is not a matter of fallibility. It is a matter of differences between languages. What Hebrew tries to convey through verbs, Indo-Europeans also convey through temporal references.

But I think the KJ Bible is well-known for it's accuracy. As been said before, it's as close as wel will get. In another topic I read that 'atheists' blamed 'fundies' for blaming the translation. I would say: if 'they' can't do it, then you can't either.

You have to deal with the problem case by case. This means you need to understand Hebrew before you can argue on a case basis, so that you can check what the original text says. There are errors in the KJV, such as the "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14.

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day (yowm) that the Lord God made
- the earth
- and the heavens
- and every plant in the field before it was in the earth
- and every herb of the field before it grew.

This is already in error. While the heavens and the earth are the object of `SWT, you need a clause onto which one attaches, "for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth: and there was not a man to till the ground". Now Hebrew is prone to verbless clauses and obviously this "for..." statement attaches not to the clause with `SWT, but to the clause with every plant and every herb. This means that the "and" of "and every plant" is not conjunctive and cannot attach the phrase to `SWT, but is a verbless clause which controls the "for..." clause.

This part speaks about 'the day' (yowm) in which God made [list]
the plants and herbs are included in this list.
Thus: God created these plants / herbs on this day.

Followed by an explanation why were the plants / herbs created, but not yet growing / coming up from the earth.
The explanation is that there was no man to till the ground.

You should now be able to see the grammatical problem of attaching the "for..." clause to a noun clause. It doesn't make sense, nor does it reflect the structure of what is said.

What you have is the starting condition:

in the day that YHWH Elohim made the earth and the heavens, and all plants of the field not yet on the earth and all herbs not yet grown, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth: and there was not a man to till the ground,

so what happened given these starting conditions?

and a vapour rose out of [MN] the earth and watered all the face of the ground, And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground

And so this creation was off and running.

Thus: there was a day in which herbs and plants were created, though they didn't grow / come out of the earth yet.

No. This is not what the text says. See above.

This day was before there was any man. (I'll follow your style of reasoning now: ;)) why don't you just read the text?

It's a shame that you still haven't done so.

Your desire to get to your conclusion is directing your thoughts.

You have to postulate against the grammar, that the plants were first created but not given existence. That's pretty contorted.

You can either say that
a. the plants started to grow after man till the ground
b. the plants started to grow after the mist came out of the earth.

But since gen2 makes no mention of man tilling the ground before the plants started to grow, that option would be reading into.
It even says that God made the plants grow in Eden, not man.

Man tills, God creates. By tillling you work the plants. There were no plants for God hadn't created man to work them, so had no reason to create them.

you cannot deny that verse 4 and 5 speak about the creation of plants before the creation of man.

This is just more faulty logic, based on faulty premises.

verse 8 and 9 are talking about the planting of the garden of Eden. About growing trees out of the ground in this garden, and putting the special trees in the mids of the garden.
It doesn't talk about creating trees!

First creative act: God makes man
Second creative act: God plants the garden
Third creative act: God makes trees spring forth (along with the special ones)

The 8th and 9th verses are about man being putted in the garden of Eden. Do you deny that? If so, why do you deny that while it's mentioned?

Ya wot?

1. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden
2. and there he put the man whom he had formed.
3. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food
4. the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

1,2 and 4 are about the garden of Eden, for it's mentioned.
3 does indeed not mention the garden of Eden.
Does that make you conclude that 3 is not about the garden of Eden?

I don't see your point.

Originally posted by spin
Now you might like to claim that he only made trees in the garden and although the narrative doesn't talk about other trees God made them before. The text simply doesn't allow you to make that conclusion.

Originally posted by CyberShy
verse 7 and 9 indeed don't allow me.
But verse 4 and 5 do.

Verses 4 and 5 definitely don't allow you. You have misinterpreted the text, as pointed out above. Here is your error again:

These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made (...) every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew (...) and there was not a man to till the ground.

You wrongfully attach a separate clause to that in v4 which contains `SWT ("made") . See above for the problem explained.

spin