Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Speaking of the contradiction about the order of creation, they say that Genesis 2:19 has been mistranslated. However, they use circular logic to prove that there is not contradiction. In other words,
[*]Assume Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 do not contradict.
Let Scripture interpret Scripture. Sounds like good advice to me.
Originally posted by RufusAtticus
[*]Therefore, Genesis 2:19 must be translated in the pluperfect and not perfect tense.
And let's not forget the TINY rule that in Hebrew, verb tense is determined by context.
Originally posted by RufusAtticus
[*]Thus Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 do not contradict.
Exactly.
Originally posted by RufusAtticus
But that doesn't work. You can't use what your trying to prove to prove itself.
In this instance, you perfectly can.
Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Okay here is the issue, compare the Genesis 2:19 in the NASB and the NIV translations.
NASB: Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and (2) brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
NIV: Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
This discrepency is because for the most part the tense of the verbs in Biblical Hebrew must be infered from context. There are no grammatical markers to distinguish between "formed" and "had formed."
Exactly!
Originally posted by RufusAtticus
However, AiG and the translators of the NIV have actually taken the passage out of its oringal context and placed it in another one, i.e. Genesis 1.
That's just your say so. Using your logic, it can be translated 'had formed' without further contention.
Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Of course, such a move is ludicrous since Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have different authors and different histories.
Controversial claim.
Originally posted by RufusAtticus
AIG dismisses the Documentary Hypothesis, which was a (the?) major discovery in the last 200 years of biblical scholarship, by calling it "anti-christian" and simply asserting that Moses is the only writter. In other words, they don't even address the evidence that the documentary hypothesis offers.
That's just your say so. Could it be that AiG dismisses this hypothesis because:
Did Moses really write Genesis?
1. Rabbinic Jewist tradition claimed that Moses was the writer?
2. The Pentateuch and rest of the Old Testament claimed that Moses was the writer?
3. Jesus himself claimed that Moses was the writer?
4. John and Paul claimed that Moses was the writer?
These are a more reliable source to me than the people who proposed the documentary hypothesis just 250 years ago.
Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Now what is the actual context of Genesis 2:19? You just have to look at Genesis 2:18-2:21.
As I have already written in an earlier post, God was trying to explain everything created up to this point was still not a suitable helper for Adam. God was saying "Man is lonely. I'm going to make a companion for him. What about the animals, you ask? Why can't they be his companions? Well, I made them already. And I brought them to Adam. And he liked them and named them and all. But there just wasn't one of them that was suitable to be his one and only. So, I put him to sleep, and made a woman for him."