POLL: Which of these elements of the creation story do you believe?

[StanJ]

Calvin says otherwise, since he considers that the sun was made on Day 4, and that the light spoken of on Day 1 did come before the sun was made:

It's pretty well-established that Calvin, being a humanist lawyer, was not very accurate when he came to understanding/exegeting the Bible.

My question to you is why you are conforming the Bible to match your own beliefs about where light on earth absolutely must come from, when Bible says that on the fourth day God made the greater light [the sun] and the lesser light [the moon]?

Is it your intention to ignore every answer you're given and continue to ask the same questions all the time? It would appear your agenda is not really to learn anything but to try to propagate your own propaganda?

 

[StanJ]

More potential excellent gaming: "Is English your primary language?"
But now I am starting to think that you have not been gaming. Usually gamers don't keep playing and then add negative comments like that.
I recommend for you the following article by a Young Earth Creationist:

It's a simple question which you seem to be avoiding at all costs. I recommend you actually answer questions and stop going in circles.

 

[OzSpen]

Actually, Augustine argued that you should not take Genesis literally. The reason is that God does not act through movements in time. Hence, the whole of creation was done in an instant, poof, just like that. The process was not spread over seven days. The reason why Genesis says six days is simply because God has to accommodate himself to our feeble intellects that are stuck on time.

I do wish you would obtain the exact quote from Augustine with a link so that we can read what he said and not rely on your statements.

Alister McGrath has an interesting article that was published by Christianity Today on Augustine's interpretation of Genesis, 'Augustine's Origin of Species' (May 8, 2009). McGrath concludes:

Unsurprisingly, Augustine approaches the text with the culturally prevalent presupposition of the fixity of species and finds nothing in it to challenge his thinking on this point. Yet the ways in which he critiques contemporary authorities and his own experience suggest that, on this point at least, he would be open to correction in light of prevailing scientific opinion.

So does Augustine's The Literal Meaning of Genesis help us engage with the great questions raised by Darwin? Let's be clear that Augustine does not answer these questions for us. But he does help us see that the real issue here is not the authority of the Bible, but its right interpretation. In addition, he offers us a classic way of thinking about the Creation that might illuminate some contemporary debates.

On this issue, Augustine is neither liberal nor accommodationist, but deeply biblical, both in substance and intention. While his approach hardly represents the last word, it needs to be on the table.

We need patient, generous, and gracious reflection on these big issues. Augustine of Hippo can help us get started.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

It's pretty well-established that Calvin, being a humanist lawyer, was not very accurate when he came to understanding/exegeting the Bible.

Is it your intention to ignore every answer you're given and continue to ask the same questions all the time? It would appear your agenda is not really to learn anything but to try to propagate your own propaganda?

Stan,

What is your understanding of the meaning of humanism in Calvin's era of the 15th and 15th centuries?

Oz

 

[Hoghead1]

I do wish you would obtain the exact quote from Augustine with a link so that we can read what he said and not rely on your statements.

Alister McGrath has an interesting article that was published by Christianity Today on Augustine's interpretation of Genesis, 'Augustine's Origin of Species' (May 8, 2009). McGrath concludes:



Oz[/QUOTE

I was referring to his work "Genesis in the Literal Sense," which I don't think is available in English. When I translated it back in 1977, I worked from the French edition. I and one of my professors, Ford Lewis Battles, who worked from the original or Latin, then had fun comparing translations. We never published, however. Here is my translation of a relevant passage:
But, above all, let us recall what we have said so often: God does not act as a man or an angel, by spiritual or corporeal movements which occur in time; He acts by the eternal, immutable, and stable rationality of His Word, which is coeternal with Him, and if I dare say by a kind of incubation of His Holy Spirit, which is equally coeternal with Him...Thus let us guard against carnal representations which would make us believe that God, to accomplish His divine works, had in some manner articulated successive utterances.( From my translation of "Genesis in the Literal Sense," I, XVIII, 25.)

 

[OzSpen]

Thanks, Hoghead, for sharing this. Do you speak French? Are you a French-Canadian? How did you become fluent enough to translate from French to English?

I have located some of 'On the Literal Meaning of Genesis' by Augustine in this Google book online. See HERE. It's from a 1982 publication by Paulist Press. New Advent doesn't have it available online. I'll make an inquiry as to why it is not available in English online, but I'll also check with CCEL.

Oz

 

[rakovsky]

Hoghead,

The Eastern Orthodox theologian Lopukhin makes an important explanation of the following verse that can help you solve the dilemma you have been discussing with the 2 alleged creation stories.

Genesis 2 says: 4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. .... 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground​

It does not say that man was made before "any plant" was in the earth, it says that man was made before any plant of the field was in the earth. In this context, "plant of the field" means the plants that humans cultivate, like wheat. So this verse is saying that man was made before the plants that man cultivates were made.

Lopukhin writes:

He gives this understanding with the general depiction of a new creation of earth before the moment of man's appearing on it which he gives with two signs - a) the absence of any traces of human culture and products of tilling the fields and b) the presence of unhelpful atmospheric conditions, making even unthinkable any culture and human existence. Everything in the mind of the writer showed the fact that on earth before Adam there was no culture, and so there was no human. This is the best Biblical rejection of reationalistic theories of pre-adamism, that people existed before Adam's creation.

http://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Lopuhin/tolkovaja_biblija_01/2

 

[Hoghead1]

Thanks, Hoghead, for sharing this. Do you speak French? Are you a French-Canadian? How did you become fluent enough to translate from French to English?

I have located some of 'On the Literal Meaning of Genesis' by Augustine in this Google book online. See HERE. It's from a 1982 publication by Paulist Press. New Advent doesn't have it available online. I'll make an inquiry as to why it is not available in English online, but I'll also check with CCEL.

Oz

To answer your question, I had loads of instruction in French, starting at age 10 via Berlitz. I also have a doctorate in theology. Both French and German were language requirements for my doctorate.

 

[Hoghead1]

Hoghead,

The Eastern Orthodox theologian Lopukhin makes an important explanation of the following verse that can help you solve the dilemma you have been discussing with the 2 alleged creation stories.

Genesis 2 says: 4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. .... 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground​

It does not say that man was made before "any plant" was in the earth, it says that man was made before any plant of the field was in the earth. In this context, "plant of the field" means the plants that humans cultivate, like wheat. So this verse is saying that man was made before the plants that man cultivates were made.

Lopukhin writes:
http://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Lopuhin/tolkovaja_biblija_01/2

Thanks, but that really doesn't help. To start with, I'm not caught in some dilemma. I know we are dealing with two different creation stories from two different time periods. Below, are my reasons for so saying. As you read through these, you will see why his solution really doesn't work.

1. 
   
   
   
   
   
   When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.
   
   
   
   Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scene, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk” (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.
   
   
   
   Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled
   
   “The Creation,” based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from two different time periods.
   
   
   
   Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.
   
   
   
   There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,” So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.
   
   
   
   There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith” written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.
   
   
   
   There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.
   
   
   
   Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.
   
   
   
   Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. Some will say it definitely means creatio ex nihilo. But God created Adam out of dust, not out of nothing. God created Eve out of Adam's rib, not out of nothing. God creates the adult out of the child, not our of nothing. The opening of the Genesis account is ambiguous here. Maybe god creates out of nothing, but maybe out of some preexistence chaos.

 

[OzSpen]

Thanks, but that really doesn't help. To start with, I'm not caught in some dilemma. I know we are dealing with two different creation stories from two different time periods. Below, are my reasons for so saying. As you read through these, you will see why his solution really doesn't work.

I don't think you can be so certain that you can say, 'I know we are dealing with two different creation stories from two different time periods' in Gen 1 and 2. Why? You weren't there to know that. We can only judge on the material we have before us.

Let's look at a couple factors from Gen 2:

What does Gen 2:1 mean?

• 'Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them' (ESV);
  
• 'Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array' (NIV);
• 'Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts' (NASB);
• 'So the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the furniture of them.' (Douay-Rheims).

There are a few different translations that are very similar, but it indicates that the heavens and the earth are finished and it looks back at that finished product.

Then we move to Gen 2:4 (ESV), which states: 'These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens'.

If you read my article, Alleged discrepancies between Genesis 1 and 2, you will read Gleason Archer's assessment. He was a Hebrew scholar who spoke approx 30 Oriental languages. He wrote: 'Verse 4 [of Gen 2] then sums up the whole sequence that has just been surveyed by saying, "These are the generations of heaven and earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made heaven and earth. Having finished the overall survey of the subject, the author then develops in detail one important feature that has already been mentioned: the creation of man. Kenneth Kitchen says,

"Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the center of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism" (Ancient Orient, p. 117)…."​

To what is the phrase, 'these are the generations' (Gen 2:4 ESV) referring with the word 'these'? The author is referring to the information described that precedes Gen 2:4, realising that what is in Gen ch. 2 (from 2:4 onwards) is not in chronological order but has a primary emphasis on human beings.

Gen 2:4 onwards is dealing with primary information on human beings. Ch 2:4ff is an exposition of Gen 1:1-2:3.

'In the day that Yahweh God made heaven and earth' (Gen 2:4) is an excellent example of where 'day' does not mean a 24-hour period. Proponents of 2 different accounts of creation in Gen 1 and 2 often point to an alleged contradiction that revolves around the order in which plants were created, plants coming on the third day (Gen 1:11) but Gen 2:9 has plants appearing after the creation of Adam. The information is otherwise than this because the plants as a general category have been declared in Gen 1:11, but specific plants that needed someone (Adam) to till the ground are in Gen 2:5-7 and 3:17-19. Why are these specific plants that need cultivation and support added in 2:8-9? They needed Adam to till the ground for them to grow and flourish.

From the biblical evidence of Gen 1 & 2, I consider that an excellent case can be made of one creation account and not 2 different creation stories from 2 different time periods.

Oz

 

[mark kennedy]

Calvin says otherwise, since he considers that the sun was made on Day 4, and that the light spoken of on Day 1 did come before the sun was made:

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/genesis/1.htm

Calvin was wrong.
The phrase, 'heaven and the earth', is a Hebrew expression meaning the universe. All we really get from this passage is that the cosmos and earth were created, 'in the beginning'. The perspective of creation week is from the surface of the earth, starting with the Spirit of God hovering over the deep (Gen. 1:2). In the chapter there are three words used for God's work in creation. The first is 'created' (see note 1) ('bara' H1254) a very precise term used only of God. It is used once to describe the creation of the universe (Gen 1:1), then again to describe the creation of life (Gen 1:21). Finally, in the closing verses, it is used three times for the creation of Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:27). The word translated, 'made' (asah 6213) (See note 2), has a much broader range of meaning and is used to speak of the creation of the 'firmament' (See note 3) (Gen 1:7), the sun, moon and stars (Gen 1:16), procreation where offspring are made 'after his/their kind' (Gen 1:25) and as a general reference to creation in it's vast array (Gen 1:31).

Then there is a third term when God 'set' (See note 4) (nathan H2414), the lights of the sun, moon and stars so that their light is reqularly visible from the surface of the earth. In this way the narrative shifts from the very precise word for 'created' to the more general 'made', and then the much broader use of 'set'.

Exegetical Notes:

1 Create ‘bara’ (H1254) - 'This verb has profound thological significance, since it has only God as it’s subject. Only God can create in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses the idea of creation out of nothing...all other verbs for “creating” allow a much broader range of meaning. a carefull study of the passages where bara occurs shows that in the few nonpoetic uses, primarily in Genesis, the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistant material. Things created, made and set by God: the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1; Isa. 40:26; 42:5; 45:18; 65:17); man (Gen. 1:27; 5:2; 6:7; Deut. 4:32; Ps. 89:47; Isa. 43:7; 45:12); Israel (Isa. 43:1; Mal. 2:10); a new thing (Jer. 31:22); cloud and smoke (Isa. 4:5); north and south (Ps. 89:12); lsalvation and righteousness (Isa. 45:8); speech (Isa. 57:19); darkness (Isa. 45:7); wind (Amos 4:13); and a new heart (Ps. 51:10).' (Vine 51)

2 Made ‘asah’(H6213) "A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application" (Gen 1:7, Gen 1:16, Gen 1:25, Gen 1:31, Isa. 41:20, 43:7, 45:7, 12, Amos 4:13). (Strong’s). "The verb, which occurs over 2600 times in the Old Testament, is used as a synonym for “create” only about 60 times…only when asah is parallel to bara…can we be sure that it implies creation." (Vine 52). Used once of how God ’made’, the ‘firmament’ (Gen. 1:7), aka, ‘sky’ or ‘atmosphere’. It is, 'analogous to the sky being hammered out like a silver or gold overlay. Used once for plants ’yielding’ fruit (Gen. 1:11, 12), aka, procreation. Then three times used used in parallel with bara, saying that God ‘made’ the sun, moon and stars (Gen. 1:16), then later ‘made’ the beast of the earth (Gen 1:25) and finally God says, Let us ‘make’ H6213 man (Gen. 1:26).

3 Firmament - (raqiya` H754) The visible arch of the sky. From 'raqa`' (H7554), which means, 'to pound the earth, as a sign of passion or by analogy, to expand by hammering. By implication, to overlay like thin sheets of metal'. The term is used to speak of hammered gold and silver (Exo 39:3; Jer 10:9).

4 Set (nathan H5414) A primitive root; to give, used with greatest latitude of application (Gen 1:17, Gen 9:13, Gen 18:8, Gen 30:40, Gen 41:41). Elsewhere translated ‘put’, ‘make’, ‘cause’, etc. This act of creation on Day 4 is God’s handiwork, God doing what only God can do, but is nevertheless, not when they were brought into existence.​

My question to you is why you are conforming the Bible to match your own beliefs about where light on earth absolutely must come from, when Bible says that on the fourth day God made the greater light [the sun] and the lesser light [the moon]?

You have managed to dodge my question, do you believe in the miracles of the Bible? What is more, when you seriously look at the language of the text you see not one but three words used for God's work in creation, 'created', 'made' and 'set'. I'm not importing anything into the text, the heavens and the earth were created 'in the beginning'. They were 'set' on day 4 which is another kind of creation. The sun, moon and stars already existed. The whole narrative is from the face of the earth.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

'In the day that Yahweh God made heaven and earth' (Gen 2:4) is an excellent example of where 'day' does not mean a 24-hour period. Proponents of 2 different accounts of creation in Gen 1 and 2 often point to an alleged contradiction that revolves around the order in which plants were created, plants coming on the third day (Gen 1:11) but Gen 2:9 has plants appearing after the creation of Adam. The information is otherwise than this because the plants as a general category have been declared in Gen 1:11, but specific plants that needed someone (Adam) to till the ground are in Gen 2:5-7 and 3:17-19. Why are these specific plants that need cultivation and support added in 2:8-9? They needed Adam to till the ground for them to grow and flourish.

Exactly! The plants in Eden were domesticated plants, not you wild plants, trees and grass. It should be pretty obvious but this JEPD nonsense has been creating confusion about this for over a hundred years.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Resha Caner]

Not really sure why you would give up on understanding what the scripture says when we are admonished in scripture to study it?

Never said that.

In any event, how old do you think Adam look like when God created him, and Eve for that matter?

The Bible never says, so I'm not going to guess.

 

[rakovsky]

Thanks, but that really doesn't help. To start with, I'm not caught in some dilemma. I know we are dealing with two different creation stories from two different time periods. Below, are my reasons for so saying. As you read through these, you will see why his solution really doesn't work.

1. 
   
   
   
   
   
   When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.
   
   
   
   Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scene, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk” (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.
   
   
   
   Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled
   
   “The Creation,” based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from two different time periods.
   
   
   
   Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.
   
   
   
   There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,” So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.
   
   
   
   There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith” written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.
   
   
   
   There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.
   
   
   
   Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.
   
   
   
   Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. Some will say it definitely means creatio ex nihilo. But God created Adam out of dust, not out of nothing. God created Eve out of Adam's rib, not out of nothing. God creates the adult out of the child, not our of nothing. The opening of the Genesis account is ambiguous here. Maybe god creates out of nothing, but maybe out of some preexistence chaos.

Isn't this the same thing you posted twice already h er e and that I was answering? It's as if you haven't even noticed what I just said said about the meaning of plants in the field.

Next time you post that, please put it in a quote box using bb code at least.

 

[rakovsky]

The word translated, 'made' (asah 6213) (See note 2), has a much broader range of meaning and is used to speak of the creation of ...the sun, moon and stars (Gen 1:16),

Yes, it is used to speak of the creation of the sun in verse 16, which is on day 4 .

Please click to expand what I highlighted :

2 Made ‘asah’(H6213)…only when asah is parallel to bara…can we be sure that it implies creation." (Vine 52). Used once of how God ’made’, the ‘firmament’ (Gen. 1:7), aka, ‘sky’ or ‘atmosphere’. It is, 'analogous to the sky being hammered out like a silver or gold overlay. Used once for plants ’yielding’ fruit (Gen. 1:11, 12), aka, procreation. Then three times used used in parallel with bara, saying that God ‘made’ the sun, moon and stars (Gen. 1:16).... and finally God says, Let us ‘make’ H6213 man (Gen. 1:26).

Notice 1. The firmament means something hard like metal.
2. On day 4, asah is used parallel to bara, which the writer you quoted says proves that it means created here on day 4, just like God created, asah, not set, man.
If you were able to write to the author he will agree with me and with calvin and with the young Earth website I pointed you to.
Feel free to contact several young Earth theologians who teach at colleges and whom you trust and they should be able to explain it to you.

 

[rakovsky]

Exactly! The plants in Eden were domesticated plants, not you wild plants, trees and grass.

FYI this fact was something I sent him on PM yesterday. I am glad you and I agree on this.

 

[Papias]

Of course it does and that along with Exodus 34:27-28 confirms it.

The verse you quoted only says that Moses wrote the ten commandments - not the whole pentateuch. The same goes for the verses OzSpen quotes. That's like saying that because I wrote the introduction for my friend's book, that I wrote the whole book. It's silly.

Do you think that the Jews of the time would have accepted what Jesus said if it wasn't written down? Moses was long dead and the knowledge of that time was that he had written the Torah. Jesus said many times throughout the Gospels, "it is written".

Of course it was written down. We are discussing whether Moses did the writing for the whole pentateuch, or if he only wrote some of it. The fact that it was written down doesn't prove Moses wrote it any more than the fact that War and Peace was written down proves that Moses wrote War and Peace.

As I said before - there is no Biblical basis for Mosaic authorship of the whole pentateuch. It's a made made idea that goes against the testimony of scripture itself.

You may have been sucked in by the Documentary Hypothesis, but the Bible is for faith believers who accept what it shows. You may accept the J,P,E,D sources, but I believe the Bible and when Jesus said Moses wrote it, I believe it.
http://www.kencollins.com/bible/bible-p2.htm

So your link shows that you just swallow what some minister with a website (who doesn't even speak Hebrew as far as I can tell), while you reject what most Biblical scholars, with hundreds of years of learning between them, agree is obvious? What's next - accepting your plumber's view of atomic fission over that of the physicists?

The POINT is not what some liberal university says firmament means, the issue is what they call the firmament, and in most Modern English translations, they translate shâmayim as SKY.

Um - you seem to have confused the words. Genesis says that God made a hard dome - a raqiya, and named it "Shamayim" or sky. It's still a hard dome, just as if I named my car "Fred" - it's still a car. You've mixed up "hard dome" (raqiya) with the name given to the hard dome (shamayim="sky")

I looked at several modern translations, and it's pretty clear:
Good News Translation:

Then God commanded, “Let there be a dome to divide the water and to keep it in two separate places”—and it was done. So God made a dome, and it separated the water under it from the water above it. He named the dome “Sky.”​

ISV:

So God made a canopy that separated the water beneath the canopy from the water above it. And that is what happened: God called the canopy“sky.”​

CEB:

God made the dome and separated the waters under the dome from the waters above the dome. And it happened in that way. God named the dome Sky.​

NRSV:

So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky.​

As pointed out before - it's not "some liberal university" saying that. It's the literal meaning of the text, and the reference I supplied to show that is a peer-reviewed paper - meaning that this is agreed up by many Biblical scholars, who actually read Hebrew.

Plus, as Rakovsky pointed out, it's that way in Strong's too.
I was talking about the verse on Firmament. Strong's says it means something beaten out:
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7549.htm
"1 (flat) expanse (as if of ice,
2. the vault of heaven, or 'firmament,' regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting 'waters' above it,"





In Christ- Papias

 

[pat34lee]

I think if you go by the Bible, #2 is actually the weakest. [/B]The Bible never specifies the exact ae of the earth and a "day" can mean different things. One verse says a day to God is a thousand years. But for some reason many Evangelicals like to imagine the world as only several thousand years old.

The word 'day' may mean more than one thing,
but "and the evening and the morning were the first day"
"and the evening and the morning were the second day", etc.
are not up for translation. They can only mean literal days.

As for corners making a flat earth; we must have flat heads,
and block-shaped bodies, because it talks about the corners
of the beards and our garments.

 

[pat34lee]

Ancient peoples like the Babylonians and Sumerians actually believed #s 1, 3-4. Abraham was from Ur in Sumer. Wouldn't it only be natural then for them to express this in their description of the world?

Let's take a look at #1.

Water in space. Is that really far-fetched considering
all of the comets made of ice floating around? How
much water is in space? LOTS.

http://www.fastcompany.com/1769468/scientists-discover-oldest-largest-body-water-existence-space
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2010/03/22/in_space_theres_water_water_ev/

 

[rakovsky]

The word 'day' may mean more than one thing,
but "and the evening and the morning were the first day"
"and the evening and the morning were the second day", etc.
are not up for translation. They can only mean literal days.

But how long is a "literal day" in that sense besides the exchange of night and light?
A literal day on earth even today is not 24 hours by a stopwatch - it actually changes since the earth's speed of rotation changes.
The Bible never says how long the exchanges of night and light were in Gen 1.

As for corners making a flat earth; we must have flat heads,
and block-shaped bodies, because it talks about the corners
of the beards and our garments.

The corners are not the only indication it gives of a flat earth.
It also talks about the ends of the earth. The head ends at the neck, and, since it's oblong, at the crown. But where does the earth end?

Further, the Bible several times speaks of people viewing the whole earth from a single point. Can that be said of a sphere?