Gen 1 in a vacuum

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I understand your train of thought... However, what I am saying is that the creation event was very well known and was not "folklore" by any means... Kinda like the stories of WWII are not debated... nor should the creation account be.
Who said they were well known? WWII is a highly documented event in history before, during and after. The creation account is documented 2500 years after it happened... at best. Let's not begin to add things to scripture just to support a literal account. If we say Adam to Methuselah to Noah to Shem is the connection then why is Abraham the only one who gets it? Did Shem not father other lines? Did his brothers not father their own? Why are the Hebrews the only ones? None of this can be answered because none of it is spoken about in scripture including these accounts being passed down since Adam. If we are to assume anything its that God himself gave these accounts to Moses.

Read the accounts for yourself. When Abraham walks into the picture time slows down and the accounts are delicately preserved and highly valued. This is unlike pre-Abrahamic accounts that are very myth like, loose in detail and inconsistent not to mention are analogous to other competing accounts of the same.

They do have details like that given to build the Ark but why such odd information to pass down to generation to generation? The value of these accounts are different than the value of the Abrahamic accounts. What makes them so different? Do you really think these accounts are passed down? It would make more sense that God gave these accounts to Moses.
 
Upvote 0

d taylor

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2018
10,550
4,684
59
Mississippi
✟247,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
When we read Gen 1 creation account we see 3 days of God separating, 3 days of God creating and 1 day of God resting. The creating days start on day 4 starting with the celestial objects, the birds and marine life then finally land creatures concluding with man. All these living creatures are in the singular in Hebrew yet they are all translated as not as a simple male and female pairing or a single specimen but mass nouns.

Then comes man. Some translations say "humans" some say "mankind". The Hebrew is "adam" but like all Hebrew names they are first Hebrew words with real meanings and "adam" is the word for mankind. So why in v26 do we assume male and female only (or just 1 man) but in the rest of the entries we assume mass nouns (birds, fish, animals etc..)? If Gen 1 was looked at in isolation when God creates man he creates an entire species that populate the world which would be the most consistent in the context.

Gen 1 opens in 1:1 and it closes in Gen 2:1-3. These are bookends to the creation account then starts a new account opening with a different focus in v4. Gen 1:1 says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." and Gen 2:4 flips the focus saying "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." it opens with "heavens and the earth" and closes with "earth and the heavens" which may suggest Gen 1 has more of downward perspective and Gen 2 may be more of an upward perspective which is a common tension in scripture (ie. was Pharaoh's heart hardened or did he harden it himself...? scripture says both). This points to Gen 1's creation as a separate account from Gen 2's creation which would make sense with the inconsistencies the two present such as the order of creation or the different word used for "God" when juxtaposed together.

So according to Gen 1 should "adam" be a mass noun as it is commonly translated such as "humankind" or should it be in strict singular form going against the rest of the creation account?

Still you have not answered Acts 17:26
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Who said they were well known? WWII is a highly documented event in history before, during and after. The creation account is documented 2500 years after it happened... at best. Let's not begin to add things to scripture just to support a literal account. If we say Adam to Methuselah to Noah to Shem is the connection then why is Abraham the only one who gets it? Did Shem not father other lines? Did his brothers not father their own? Why are the Hebrews the only ones? None of this can be answered because none of it is spoken about in scripture including these accounts being passed down since Adam. If we are to assume anything its that God himself gave these accounts to Moses.

Read the accounts for yourself. When Abraham walks into the picture time slows down and the accounts are delicately preserved and highly valued. This is unlike pre-Abrahamic accounts that are very myth like, loose in detail and inconsistent not to mention are analogous to other competing accounts of the same.

They do have details like that given to build the Ark but why such odd information to pass down to generation to generation? The value of these accounts are different than the value of the Abrahamic accounts. What makes them so different? Do you really think these accounts are passed down? It would make more sense that God gave these accounts to Moses.
I give up....

My point was...... that length of time... back then... was not the same as now.. when a generation is 70 years... when a generation was more like 500 - 700 years...

Information was also compressed... as far as history... 100 years in the past... was not any more history to them than something last year is history for me.
 
Upvote 0

Ronald

Exhortations
Supporter
Jul 30, 2004
4,620
982
southern
✟111,578.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I didn't say Moses made it up. The accounts are ordained by God and are no less inspired than the rest of scripture. Scripture does not say who interacted with who in relation to Adam, Methuselah etc..., so there is a bit of an assumption in here to say Moses's sons (assuming Shem) knew Abraham and had a pure account of creation. I can make assumptions too... Methuselah died the exact same year of the flood and his name even has an apocalyptic meaning. One could argue he died as a part of the judgment and was not spared so would not be a good steward of the faith to pass on to Noah. But scripture doesn't support this does it... so let's keep to what scripture actually does support rather than read in between the lines. And, of course, what of Abraham to Moses or is that 300-400-year gap not important?

I think it is most responsible to say that Moses didn't receive the account from his fathers and them from their fathers but rather from God himself. God has authority over all things, even worldly accounts, and he can shape and mould them however he wishes to give himself glory. Is he not able? Why is it I have no faith because I don't accept a strict literal view but the same can't be said to you when you can't see God being able to work through non-literal accounts and carry the impact and truth he desires for his glory?
When we want to know the origin of anything, we ask for the facts, the details. We expect a literal explanation. This is how we want it. When a crime is committed, the police officer investigating the incident asks for the facts. In a court of law, they ask for the facts. People don't answer them in symbolic language. "Well, I really want to tell you exactly how it went down but I'm going to tell you in an allegory that might sound conflicting and that you may not understand ..." Your answer to the authorities better be straight forward, the facts, the whole truth.
IS THIS how we communicate and receive information, through symbolic puzzles that cause confliction and controversy? Is this how God begins His story of creation? Does He not want us to understand? Jesus was very clear. When symbolism is used in scripture , it is usually followed by an explanation. The parables were announced as such and explained.
NO! THIS VERY IMPORTANT EVENT CALLED CREATION WAS EXPLAINED TO US IN SIMPLE, LITERAL WORDS THAT WE CAN TRUST - WE EXPECT NOTHING LESS THAN A CLEAR EXPLANATION, THE TRUTH.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Information was also compressed... as far as history... 100 years in the past... was not any more history to them than something last year is history for me.
time is not compressed, the accounts are. you are treating these characters and events as non-literal and you don't even know it. non-literal characters don't do anything outside of what we are told. They don't have aspirations outside of what we are told, they don't have any history outside of what we are told, they don't eat or sleep unless we are told this, they don't kill an animal to eat for every day they live. In reality, if someone lives 100 years, then 100 years of stuff happened to them and 100 years of memories; time is no more compressed then than it is now.
 
Last edited:
  • Useful
Reactions: VirOptimus
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Still you have not answered Acts 17:26
I'm not sure what you want me to say about this. this neither proves or disproves a literal account. the point in Acts is built from the information provided in the accounts which are ordained by God so are reliable truth.

Ancient Hebrews think differently than us. A man may die without a son and his brother may produce the male offspring by way of proxy. the son is raised in the name of the deceased brother. Westerns don't accept this, we would say something like "but really the son is the living brother's son" but that is not the thinking, the son is the deceased brothers son and what is literal doesn't matter. This also is true for Gentiles being grafted into Isreal. Gentiles, in this case, are not naturally from the root but what is literal doesn't matter and Gentiles can still be of Isreal.

this is similar for non-literal accounts, especially in oral ancient cultures. it doesn't matter what is literal, what matters is what is declared truth. I point out the flaws of looking at it in a literal view (like looking at the DNA of the son) but the flaws don't matter, and if it's literal also doesn't matter. The account is grafted in as truth and so it is truth.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
time is not compressed, the accounts are. you are treating these characters and events as non-literal and you don't even know it. non-literal characters don't do anything outside of what we are told. They don't have aspirations outside of what we are told, they don't have any history outside of what we are told, they don't eat or sleep unless we are told this, they don't kill an animal to eat for every day they live. In reality, if someone lives 100 years, then 100 years of stuff happened to them and 100 years of memories; time is no more compressed then than it is now.
I wish you well in your quest to understand this portion of scripture... God bless.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: DamianWarS
Upvote 0

d taylor

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2018
10,550
4,684
59
Mississippi
✟247,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
I'm not sure what you want me to say about this. this neither proves or disproves a literal account. the point in Acts is built from the information provided in the accounts which are ordained by God so are reliable truth.

Ancient Hebrews think differently than us. A man may die without a son and his brother may produce the male offspring by way of proxy. the son is raised in the name of the deceased brother. Westerns don't accept this, we would say something like "but really the son is the living brother's son" but that is not the thinking, the son is the deceased brothers son and what is literal doesn't matter. This also is true for Gentiles being grafted into Isreal. Gentiles, in this case, are not naturally from the root but what is literal doesn't matter and Gentiles can still be of Isreal.

this is similar for non-literal accounts, especially in oral ancient cultures. it doesn't matter what is literal, what matters is what is declared truth. I point out the flaws of looking at it in a literal view (like looking at the DNA of the son) but the flaws don't matter, and if it's literal also doesn't matter. The account is grafted in as truth and so it is truth.

Personally i believe you bring a lot of unnecessary ideas into you reading of the Bible. No wonder you can not take the text as given: example Adam is not actually Adam but it really is humanity.
So instead of God beginning His creation of humanity with one man and woman God actually created the human race with what 1,000 , 10,000, 50,000 100,000 1,000,000. Whats the number i am sure the Bible would address this some where.

So then what do you do with these numbers and how sin entered the world. So everyone created partake of the fruit and that is actually how sinned came into the world or do also not take that as it is given in the bible.

Just like in you opening comment by stating that there are three days of separating and three days of creation and one day of rest.

When actually on the first day God creates light, the second day God created the raqia (firmament, vault, expanse) that separates the waters (above and below) the third day God brings forth or it could be said created the land so creating is seen from day one to day six.


Acts 17 proves that your belief that Adam stands for humanity is not correct.

This is the trap of using human reasoning to twist the meaning of a phrase into something you want it to mean.
The Biblical way to avoid that trap of bringing your ideas into the text. Establish every matter in the mouth of two or three witnesses. If we trust God to fulfill his word, he will follow his own teaching. Therefore, everything that we need to know and learn in the Bible most likely, will be given in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses. I say most likely, because i have not read every single account in the Bible and can say that that is absolutely true.

A good example of this is in Job 26:7 I know that that verse is mistranslated where it has been translated to say, the earth hangs on nothing.

There is no where else in the Bible that supports the saying that the earth hangs on nothing. But there are verses that state the earth is set on pillars or has foundations.

So actually Job 26:7
The Hebrew is —
neteh tsephoon ol tehoo tehleh arets ol belimeh,
The proper translation of which is:
"He spreadeth out the North over the desolate' place (the abyss of waters), and supporteth the Earth upon
fastenings."

Which is supported by the Bible where as the earth hangs on nothing is not supported by the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Personally i believe you bring a lot of unnecessary ideas into you reading of the Bible. No wonder you can not take the text as given: example Adam is not actually Adam but it really is humanity.

All Hebrew names have Hebrew meanings. Adam is the word for mankind. the strongs KJV counts this word occurring 552 in the OT. it is only translated as the name Adam 13 times, the remainder has a more broad definition, most of which explicitly is referring to man. I couldn't find a single verse of this word being translated as "Adam" in Gen 1:26 and if Gen 1 was isolated, which it literary style would suggest it started this way, it would suggest the creation of mankind (plural) rather than man (singular)

So instead of God beginning His creation of humanity with one man and woman God actually created the human race with what 1,000 , 10,000, 50,000 100,000 1,000,000. Whats the number i am sure the Bible would address this some where.

remember I'm agnostic to what happened. I don't know how many God first created and I'm certainly not going put a number in Gen 1 as the text does not support this. I'm merely pointing out that the text itself suggests mankind as a mass noun rather than a singularity (or pair) and I'm not alone on this.

So then what do you do with these numbers and how sin entered the world. So everyone created partake of the fruit and that is actually how sinned came into the world or do also not take that as it is given in the bible.

again, I'm agnostic to what actually happened so I don't do anything with "these numbers" as it would be irresponsible to start some hamartiology based upon some made up number that the text cannot support, according to Gen 1.

Gen 1 actually doesn't tell me I'm sinful so it's an uncomment aspect of the account. I learn this from Gen 2-3 (a different account with a different goal). if Gen 1 suggests mankind as a mass noun and Gen 2 tells us, 1 male and 1 female, these don't have to overlap. they can exist as separate accounts and we can learn from what they are trying to tell us.

Just like in you opening comment by stating that there are three days of separating and three days of creation and one day of rest.

When actually on the first day God creates light, the second day God created the raqia (firmament, vault, expanse) that separates the waters (above and below) the third day God brings forth or it could be said created the land so creating is seen from day one to day six.

the word "create" (BARA) is not used in the first 3 days. it is first used in 1:1 of course, which seem to act as an opening statement (then complimented with the closing statements of 2:1-3) it isn't used again until the 5th day. I am not using words the text doesn't use, the first 3 days seem to be about separating light from dark, waters from sky, land from water but God does speak into being these things as well. You might see this as a arbitary point and rather just call it all create but the Hebrew for creating has more concrete meaning of shaping or forming... even fattening and it assumes something already there that is manipulated into something new.

Acts 17 proves that your belief that Adam stands for humanity is not correct.

Gen 1 "adam" does mean the name "Adam" and not one translation uses the name. I do not reject that God made 1 man and 1 woman to popular the earth, it's even a scientific view, I'm just saying Gen 1 seems to refer to "adam" as a mass noun. This doesn't demand that God created 1,000,000 people in one go but it also doesn't demand God created 1 man only. Again this is Gen 1 in a vacuum, passages like Acts 17 draws upon the idea that God was intimately involved in make all nations through 1 man having significant spiritual implications. What is more important? The spiritual meaning of the account of the literal, I goal the account is to deliberately foreshadow the Christ in these details and this is by far the most important aspect. If there was actually 1 man-1 female really doesn't matter, what matters is what it points to.

This is the trap of using human reasoning to twist the meaning of a phrase into something you want it to mean.
The Biblical way to avoid that trap of bringing your ideas into the text. Establish every matter in the mouth of two or three witnesses. If we trust God to fulfill his word, he will follow his own teaching. Therefore, everything that we need to know and learn in the Bible most likely, will be given in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses. I say most likely, because i have not read every single account in the Bible and can say that that is absolutely true.

A good example of this is in Job 26:7 I know that that verse is mistranslated where it has been translated to say, the earth hangs on nothing.

There is no where else in the Bible that supports the saying that the earth hangs on nothing. But there are verses that state the earth is set on pillars or has foundations.

So actually Job 26:7
The Hebrew is —
neteh tsephoon ol tehoo tehleh arets ol belimeh,
The proper translation of which is:
"He spreadeth out the North over the desolate' place (the abyss of waters), and supporteth the Earth upon
fastenings."

Which is supported by the Bible where as the earth hangs on nothing is not supported by the Bible.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Ancient Hebrew is an extremely concrete language so there's going to be some odd ways it phrases things as it develops abstracts through concretes. I think it would be irresponsible to superimpose this verse over some scientific claim especially from the book of Job a poetic genre.

With that said your 2 to 3 witnesses is good for verifiable and responsible doctrine but it in itself is not really a biblical hermeneutical approach it is a man-made approach to keep more sound doctrine which by the way it itself cannot be biblically verified by 2-3 witnessing within scripture. For example, let's take the passage 1 Cor 13:10. What is "the perfect"? some say it is the completion of the canon or the initial wave of the established church. This is a widely accepted perspective however nowhere in scripture is this moment talked about so it fails the 2-3 witness approach. I for one disagree with this interpretation as well as see the perfect analogous with an eschatological event which I think is the only verifiable interpretation. I'm not sure what you think of this verse but it's an example of how people don't care about 2-3 witnesses if it doesn't suit them (perhaps to my discredit).

However, I am not robbing the truth from these accounts which is the important part of them. I'm saying a strictly literal view is somewhat flawed and doesn't work and it also seeks to distract us too much trying to reconcile them or fixated on there literal aspect too much that we miss the point. table the literal aspect and focus on what the account is truely trying to say.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

d taylor

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2018
10,550
4,684
59
Mississippi
✟247,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
So here is your theory in Genesis 1 God created mankind (how many you do not state). Then in Genesis 2 God creates another man that God will use to either establish man as un-sinful and acquiring permanent state of eternal life or either this man will establish mankind as sinful and bring death into God's creation.
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,592
Northern Ohio
✟314,577.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
the strongs KJV counts this word occurring 552 in the OT.
The exact Hebrew spelling אָדָ֛ם is used 316 times. You can do a study on these three Hebrew letters to determine the meaning of the word. This word begins with Aleph, this is also the first letter in the alphabet and the first letter in the name of God. A yud above and a yud below connected with a slanted line. This letter is made using three pen strokes. One for earth, one for heaven and the slanted lie represents the connection between heaven and earth. The first letter in a word sets the pace for that word. There is a lot of teaching on YouTube regarding the Hebrew Language. The second letter dalet represents a poor person that is a servant. Also this can represent a doorway. The third letter Mem relates to water. Both stagnate water and flowing or living water. We know that the river of life flows from the throne of God.

We can learn a lot about man if we read and study these 316 passages. Based on context. Also we can study the meaning of these three Hebrew letters that man is made from. God joins these three elements together to form man.

Science tells us that it took God 12.9 Billion years to create Adam, yet we find Adam 5990 years ago in Ancient Mesopotamia in the Garden of Eden. Modern man had his beginning 12,990 years ago. At the time there was a nanodiamond comet that we can use for a marker for the beginning of the age or era. There was a massive extinction at that time.

The numerical value of Aleph is 1 (one) the value is also 1000 in the Hebrew.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,592
Northern Ohio
✟314,577.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So here is your theory in Genesis 1 God created mankind (how many you do not state). Then in Genesis 2 God creates another man that God will use to either establish man as un-sinful and acquiring permanent state of eternal life or either this man will establish mankind as sinful and bring death into God's creation.
The Bible is clear about the breath of life: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,592
Northern Ohio
✟314,577.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
why is Abraham the only one who gets it?
Abraham was the first to cross the river and leave Ancient Mesopotamia. Just like 40,000 years ago people left Africa and moved to what became Mesopotamia. Science has put a lot of effort into understanding how farming began in the Middle East and spread to Europe. Abraham was told to come out from amount them. He was to represent the truth. At the time truth and error was mixed together.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums