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

[Hoghead1]

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.​

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

You have to give credit where credit is due. You keep wanting to depict Calvin as a careless exegete. Yet you have never studied his sermons or commentaries. In point of fact, he worked directly from the original texts, not translations, which he considered inaccurate. True, he did not use modern exegetical methods. However, many Christians today do not, either. That's the problem I have with the Bible Belt.

 

[StanJ]

Yes, I know that and that also means talking into account who wrote it and when.

Not really, if you believe that it is inspired of God, it's inspired of God. Would it really matter who wrote it?

 

[StanJ]

I find the JDEP debate and the question of Mosaic authorship to be outside the thread. Whether or not the author was Moses, the Bible still says what it says, and we are left asking whether it teaches the 5 things I listed in the opening poll.
In your excessively long letter, you wrote that there are two separate stories of the same exact Creation, but that in Story #2 the plants are made AFTER Man. I replied that if you look at Genesis 2, it does not say that all the world's plants were made after man, it says that the "plants of the field" were made after man, a reference to the kinds of plants that man cultivates in fields. This makes perfect sense because humans are needed to cultivate the "plants of the field". Take for example maize. Did you know that this variety of crop was specially bred by humans? That is what Genesis 2 is saying. Thus I have provided a reasonable solution to what you presented as a paradox of when the plants were made.
Your response was to just re-quote your long letter and ask me to address your letter. Please discontinue posting your letter and just provide a link to it for sake of ease in reading the thread.

There probably is a rule here about not making onerous posts by copying & pasting, but it has to be reported in order for it to be addressed.

Gen 2:4-25 is a breakdown or a more detailed account of Gen 1:26-31, just as it is a breakdown of Gen 1:1.

 

[rakovsky]

I said the order of the animals. Gen. 1, first animals, then Adam and Eve together. Gen. 2, first Adam, then animals, then Eve. Either Adam was created before the animals (Gen. 2) or after the animals (Gen. 1) and together with Eve (Gen, 1) or Eve was created later (Gen2 2).

Solution 1: The Animals mentioned in Genesis 2 are those specifically in the Garden of Eden where God had just moved man. It never says that before God made the animals at that moment for Adam to name them that there had been no animals:

15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. ...
18 And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone [IE IN THE GARDEN]; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field [AGAIN: "BEAST OF THE FIELD, NOT EVERY INDIVIDUAL ANIMAL BEING THAT EVER EXISTED] and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.

It means that in that garden God made every kind of animal and brought it to him in the garden, not every animal that ever existed.

Solution 2: It's not 100% perfectly chronological in Genesis 1 and 2. We are talking about someone in 2000 BC retelling a narrative (whether or not it's factually true), and so the retelling may not be perfectly chronological in each account.

Example:

15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. ...
18 And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper[EVE] comparable to him.” 19 [NO WORD "THEN" SO HERE, IT'S NOT CHRONOLOGICAL] Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast 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 each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.

 

[OzSpen]

The chronologies of the accounts are contradictory. The linguistic styles are very different. Gen. 2 is narrative style, which existed before the liturgical (Gen. 1). And then there would be the matter of spelling, punctuation, word usage, etc. I hate to repost something I already said, but below, is my account of the Gernesis situation, just in case you missed it.

I do not need your long post again. I've read it in your post to another person.

As I've attempted to show you, there is no contradiction between Gen 2 and Gen 1 because there is no attempt to be chronological in Gen 2. It is you who is imposing your 'contradictory' interpretation onto Gen 1 and 2 by requiring that ch 2 be chronological. It is not, as I've tried to show ever so briefly in my short article, Alleged discrepancies between Genesis 1 and 2.

This evidence of no contradiction between Gen 1 & 2 is confirmed in the article, Why are there two different Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2? (GotQuestions?org)

There are excellent and reasonable biblical reasons for this explanation. You seem to be imposing lots on the text with your explanations. Genesis 2 does not contradict Genesis 1. There purposes are quite different and so are the explanations.

Oz

 

[Hoghead1]

Solution 1: The Animals mentioned in Genesis 2 are those specifically in the Garden of Eden where God had just moved man. It never says that before God made the animals at that moment for Adam to name them that there had been no animals:

15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. ...
18 And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone [IE IN THE GARDEN]; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field [AGAIN: "BEAST OF THE FIELD, NOT EVERY INDIVIDUAL ANIMAL BEING THAT EVER EXISTED] and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.

It means that in that garden God made every kind of animal and brought it to him in the garden, not every animal that ever existed.

Solution 2: It's not 100% perfectly chronological in Genesis 1 and 2. We are talking about someone in 2000 BC retelling a narrative (whether or not it's factually true), and so the retelling may not be perfectly chronological in each account.

Example:

15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. ...
18 And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper[EVE] comparable to him.” 19 [NO WORD "THEN" SO HERE, IT'S NOT CHRONOLOGICAL] Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast 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 each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.

No, see none of your suggestions work. Gen. 2 makes it very plain that there were no animals before Adam came alone. The text makes it plain that Adam, for some reason, wasn't happy being totally alone, so, in response, God created animals as possible companions.

 

[Hoghead1]

I do not need your long post again. I've read it in your post to another person.

As I've attempted to show you, there is no contradiction between Gen 2 and Gen 1 because there is no attempt to be chronological in Gen 2. It is you who is imposing your 'contradictory' interpretation onto Gen 1 and 2 by requiring that ch 2 be chronological. It is not, as I've tried to show ever so briefly in my short article, Alleged discrepancies between Genesis 1 and 2.

This evidence of no contradiction between Gen 1 & 2 is confirmed in the article, Why are there two different Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2? (GotQuestions?org)

There are excellent and reasonable biblical reasons for this explanation. You seem to be imposing lots on the text with your explanations. Genesis 2 does not contradict Genesis 1. There purposes are quite different and so are the explanations.

Oz

OK, well, let's see you run through each of my points and provide a rational rebuttal, then. Instead, you blew me off and told me to go look at some online apologist. I hate that when members here do that. I am talking to you, not them. If you can't explain it in your own words, than I suspect you really don't know what you are talking about. Also, Got Questions? is one of many online apologetic sites that I have visited and found totally inept in terms of personnel and argumentation.

 

[StanJ]

No, see none of your suggestions work. Gen. 2 makes it very plain that there were no animals before Adam came alone. The text makes it plain that Adam, for some reason, wasn't happy being totally alone, so, in response, God created animals as possible companions.

That's because you're reading Genesis 2 in the wrong chronological time frame. It actually happened during Gen 1:26-31.

 

[rakovsky]

The text makes it plain that Adam, for some reason, wasn't happy being totally alone, so, in response, God created animals as possible companions.

Come on, Hoghead, you are an academic, you should know better.
It says: "I will make him a helper[EVE]", in the singular. Therefore it cannot be talking about making animals (plural) as possible companions.
God brought the animals to him to name, but it never says they had not existed before Adam made man. It can be non chronological because it's telling a story.

 

[Hoghead1]

I'd say then show it but then we'll get into a whole bunch of cross posting of links. If you can articulate something that proves that Moses didn't write the Torah then go ahead and start your own thread, but for the most part it would be off topic here to pursue this here.
This thread is about the literalness of Genesis 1.

Yes, and that means taking into account at least two different authors writing from two different time periods. That's were concern about the Mosaic authorship comes into the picture.

 

[Hoghead1]

That's because you're reading Genesis 2 in the wrong chronological time frame. It actually happened during Gen 1:26-31.

Baloney.

 

[rakovsky]

Yes, and that means taking into account at least two different authors writing from two different time periods. That's were concern about the Mosaic authorship comes into the picture.

I am Rakovsky. I am Threadmaster.
Я - Мастер Темы.

 

[StanJ]

Yes, and that means taking into account at least two different authors writing from two different time periods. That's were concern about the Mosaic authorship comes into the picture.

Not at all, as I just stated. I'm not really interested in continually repeating myself or answering repeated assertions

 

[StanJ]

Baloney.

Is that your doctoral opinion?

 

[OzSpen]

OK, well, let's see you run through each of my points and provide a rational rebuttal, then. Instead, you blew me off and told me to go look at some online apologist. I hate that when members here do that. I am talking to you, not them. If you can't explain it in your own words, than I suspect you really don't know what you are talking about. Also, Got Questions? is one of many online apologetic sites that I have visited and found totally inept in terms of personnel and argumentation.

You have erected a straw man fallacy and done it with an ad hominem. Then you use a genetic logical fallacy with regard to the ministry of Got Questions?

We cannot have a rational discussion when you don't deal with the evidence I've provided and engage in the use of these logical fallacies.

Oz

 

[StanJ]

No, see none of your suggestions work. Gen. 2 makes it very plain that there were no animals before Adam came alone. The text makes it plain that Adam, for some reason, wasn't happy being totally alone, so, in response, God created animals as possible companions.

But they were created before, as Gen 1:24-25 shows.

 

[OzSpen]

Baloney.

That's hardly a rational argument. You have used an ad hominem fallacy!

 

[rakovsky]

I - Master of Thread.

However now I will say my opinion about Mosaic authorship. I think that whoever wrote Genesis was probably the same person or it was a group of people intentionally working together. There is a secret in the Torah that shows Genesis was deliberately written as one whole work:

In the Hebrew text of the book of Genesis, if you take the first (“T”), then count 49 letters, the next letter (the 50th) is (“O”); the next 50th is (“R”); and then the next 50th is (“H”). In other words, after the first “T”, in 50 letter increments, we find the letters spelling “Torah.”

http://www.bereanpublishers.com/a-hidden-torah-secret/
This must mean at the least that whoever wrote Genesis 2 intentionally wrote its words to fit with Genesis 1. They are not two totally independent separate stories by two totally separate authors.

The claim that Genesis 1 and 2 present two separate contradictory accounts of the same creation activities so that they must be made by different writers is actually a broken claim. It relies on demanding a rigid absolutist reading of Genesis 1 and 2 that does not allow any potential confusion by the reader or inaccuracies or even potential nonchronologies.

To demand that they were two different authors, it looks like advocates of that allegation claim that there are contradictions and that BECAUSE there are contradictions, therefore they must have two different writers, as if the same author could not have missed potential significant conflicts in his own lengthy story.

Therefore, I personally reject the claim that Genesis 1 and 2 had two totally different authors.

HOWEVER, was that author a person who exactly personally matched the name and title and biography of Moses we read about in the Torah? I don't know how that could be proven one way or the other especially if the Bible nowhere directly spells that out, other than just calling this section of the Bible the Torah of Moses.

This is about as direct as we have:

The Torah has six mentions of Moses writing passages:

• Exodus 17:14: God commands Moses: "Write this, a remembrance..." The context indicates that God is commanding Moses to record Joshua's battle with Amalek described in Exodus 7:8-13.
• Exodus 24:4: "Moses wrote all the words of the Lord." This apparently refers to the laws which God has just given in Exodus 20:21-23:33.
• Exodus 34:28: Moses "wrote upon the tablets the words of the covenant, ten words." The identity of these "ten words" is not made clear, but probably is a reference to the Ten Commandments given several chapters previously, in Exodus 20.
• Numbers 33:2: "And Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of the Lord: and these are their journeys according to their goings out." (King James Version) This refers to Moses recording the journeys that the Israelites took within the desert.
• Deuteronomy 31:9: "Moses wrote this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, the ones carrying the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord" and Deuteronomy 31:24: "Moses ... finished writing the words of this law on a scroll." It is not clear just what Moses wrote. According to the Talmud, it in fact refers to the entire Pentateuch, but it is usually taken to be the collection of laws that make up Deuteronomy 5-30.[6][need quotation to verify]
• Deuteronomy 31:22: "Moses wrote down this song on that day." The "song" is presumably Deuteronomy 32, the Song of Moses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_authorship

Beyond this we don't have a specific direct answer as to how much Moses himself wrote, especially if we mean completely by himself and with no help.

 

[rakovsky]

Yeah I'm not playing that game... quote me properly using the quote facilities on this forum and I'll reply accordingly.

The four bullet points below are what I understand your positions to be. I have given a quote to show how I got #2 and #4 is a direct quote.

• 1. Every "Day" in Genesis 1 before humans were made must be 24 hours by a modern human stopwatch.
• 2. About half of the Creationists polled do not reject "Young Earth" theory.

RAKOVSKY: Based on the poll half of people who think Adam came directly from clay say it was not necessarily 24 hours.
STAN: Really? What post numbers are those?

The poll numbers at the topic of this topic thread.

1. 2. The earth's age is under 10,000 years old, or the 7 days of creation were in c.24 hour periods.
   16 vote(s)
   29.1%
2. 5. God made man directly out of the earth instead of using Evolution through lower mammalian classes
   26 vote(s)
   47.3%

• 3. The Sun was made on Day 1, not on Day 4, which is what the Bible says according to Calvin.
• 4. Hence: "Calvin... was not very accurate when he came to understanding/exegeting the Bible."

Please let me know if you disagree with these and if so, what you would say instead.

 

[Hoghead1]

Not really, if you believe that it is inspired of God, it's inspired of God. Would it really matter who wrote it?

Yes. I don't believe God dictated Scripture word for word to purely passive scribes who took it all down like automatic writing. Divinely inspired as it may be, Scripture was still written by human beings. Knowing who wrote it and when helps greatly in understanding its message.