A very difficult passage!

[mark kennedy]

The river flowing out of Eden is actually the opposite of how rivers work today. The Mississippi, if you are even remotely familar with Amercian topography, comes from a lot of smaller rivers. You have to realize, most of the water that is collected into oceans and seas was mostly underground at that time. The only river I know of that works like this one would be the Nile. The source of it's multiple tributaries is somewhere deep in central Africa.

The passage reminds me of a joke my Dad used to tell. A farmer is out working in his fields and the local preacher happens by, the preacher says, "You and the Lord are doing a great job on these crops". The farmer says, "Yeah? you should have seen it when He had it all to Himself." I think God created Adam for the exact reason described, to work in the Garden of God. Man is made from the earth for the earth which is why I don't believe in dieing and going to heaven exactly. I think in the ressurection heaven comes here and the earth becomes as God originally intended for it to be.

Its not really all that difficult a passage, it's just not going to give you a good topography of the anitdeluvian period. There were most likely no oceans and much smaller mountains at the time. That makes the use of Genesis as a springboard for ancient topography pretty tough.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[jereth]

The river flowing out of Eden is actually the opposite of how rivers work today. The Mississippi, if you are even remotely familar with Amercian topography, comes from a lot of smaller rivers.

However, it's possible that the direction of flow was not important to the author of Genesis 2 -- when he speaks about the river "dividing" into 4 riverheads, he may simply be describing it from the perspective of someone walking upstream. If this is the case, then his description of the river (the Tigris and Euphrates part at any rate) is quite accurate. It may be that the other 2 rivers (the pishon and gihon) are ancient names for other tributaries of the Tigris-Euphrates system, which have different names today.

You have to realize, most of the water that is collected into oceans and seas was mostly underground at that time.

What's the basis for this claim?

Man is made from the earth for the earth which is why I don't believe in dieing and going to heaven exactly. I think in the ressurection heaven comes here and the earth becomes as God originally intended for it to be.

Yes, I agree with you here -- the new creation will be physical and material. Revelation 21-22 describes the New Jerusalem coming down to a renewed earth, not humans going up to heaven.

The idea of christians "going to heaven" for eternity is really quite a bad theological error.

Its not really all that difficult a passage, it's just not going to give you a good topography of the anitdeluvian period. There were most likely no oceans and much smaller mountains at the time. That makes the use of Genesis as a springboard for ancient topography pretty tough.

You are of course assuming a global flood when you write this, but I disagree with that.

 

[mark kennedy]

However, it's possible that the direction of flow was not important to the author of Genesis 2 -- when he speaks about the river "dividing" into 4 riverheads, he may simply be describing it from the perspective of someone walking upstream. If this is the case, then his description of the river (the Tigris and Euphrates part at any rate) is quite accurate. It may be that the other 2 rivers (the pishon and gihon) are ancient names for other tributaries of the Tigris-Euphrates system, which have different names today.

That kind of makes sense, I had a teacher at a Bible college tell me he thought one of the rivers was the Nile. I have often wondered if Moses was relying on a direct revelation or possible some kind of oral tradition. For a prophet to say 'the Lord said' or 'thus saith the Lord' that's a direct revelation but sometimes the author will use his understanding as well.

What's the basis for this claim?

Well, first of all it talks about the flood coming not just from rain but from the ground.

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." (Gen. 7:11)

This passage seems to suggest that the oceans were not in the original creation plan. I certainly don't consider it some kind of a proof text but that's where I got the idea.

"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea." (Rev 21:1)

Yes, I agree with you here -- the new creation will be physical and material. Revelation 21-22 describes the New Jerusalem coming down to a renewed earth, not humans going up to heaven.

I think we will have access to the heavenly courts but we will at least start the eternal state right here.

The idea of christians "going to heaven" for eternity is really quite a bad theological error.

I don't know how many Christians I have met that don't believe in the bodily ressurection (rapture). I try to explain that Jesus was raised bodily and so will we, apparently it hard concept for some people to grasp.

You are of course assuming a global flood when you write this, but I disagree with that.

A local flood probably would not have been nessacary if everything was localized. I'm a young earth creationist so a global flood is no big leap in logic when you believe in a 6.000 year old earth.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[jereth]

That kind of makes sense, I had a teacher at a Bible college tell me he thought one of the rivers was the Nile.

I wonder if that is because the region of "Cush" (usually Ethiopia) is mentioned. I guess there are 2 possibilities: either, there was another region called "Cush" in ancient Mesopotamia, or, the author was describing a mythical river that flowed between Ethiopia and Mesopotamia. The King James Version appears to assume the latter, because it translates "Cush" as "ethiopia" in this Genesis 2 passage. I guess we can never know for sure.

I have often wondered if Moses was relying on a direct revelation or possible some kind of oral tradition. For a prophet to say 'the Lord said' or 'thus saith the Lord' that's a direct revelation but sometimes the author will use his understanding as well.

Yes, in many (if not most) parts of the Bible the authors used their own understanding as they wrote (which was providentially influenced by God). I believe that pretty much all of Genesis is based on oral tradition.

Well, first of all it talks about the flood coming not just from rain but from the ground.

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." (Gen. 7:11)

My own opinion about this is that it is a poetic phrase indicating that "lots of water came from everywhere". The ancient hebrews believed there were waters above and below the earth, so that's how it would have made sense to them.

This passage seems to suggest that the oceans were not in the original creation plan. I certainly don't consider it some kind of a proof text but that's where I got the idea.

"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea." (Rev 21:1)

But what about this:
[FONT=&quot]And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (Genesis 1:9, 10)[/FONT]

I think the point of the Revelation passage is that the new creation will be different and superior to the old creation. The Hebrews associated the sea with chaos, so Revelation is saying that the new creation will no longer have chaos. For the similar reasons, we are told that the new creation will not have any night. See Revelation 21:25 and 22:5, and compare with Genesis 1:3-5. Night and sea are symbols of darkness and chaos.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I'm a young earth creationist so a global flood is no big leap in logic when you believe in a 6.000 year old earth


we agree!!!!

 

[shernren]

I think 6.000 is a typo? I'm sure the world wasn't created in AD 2,000 more importantly, I don't really get this:

Well, first of all it talks about the flood coming not just from rain but from the ground.

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." (Gen. 7:11)

This passage seems to suggest that the oceans were not in the original creation plan. I certainly don't consider it some kind of a proof text but that's where I got the idea.

"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea." (Rev 21:1)

God's original creation plan sure included sea animals, so why not a sea?

One thing I'm not sure about is whether you can assume that the rivers and places named in Genesis 2 are equivalent to our modern names. How do we know that the Cush of Genesis 2 is the Cush of the rest of the Bible? Ditto the Euphrates. After all, since the world and humanity was radically changed by sin, there's no reason to believe that a pre-sin world and post-sin world should have shared the same geographical labelings, at least to me.

 

[jereth]

One thing I'm not sure about is whether you can assume that the rivers and places named in Genesis 2 are equivalent to our modern names. How do we know that the Cush of Genesis 2 is the Cush of the rest of the Bible? Ditto the Euphrates. After all, since the world and humanity was radically changed by sin, there's no reason to believe that a pre-sin world and post-sin world should have shared the same geographical labelings, at least to me.

I find it hard to believe that Assyria, Tigris and Euphrates could be anything other than a reference to literal Mesopotamia.

The question is: does Genesis 2 tell a real story, or is it a myth with quasi-fictional setting? Currently I'd vote the latter.

 

[gluadys]

"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." Genesis 2:4

Huh? This is the ending to the initial account, before the author goes into more detail. "These are the generations" is used several times in Genesis to represent a transitional point.

Actually, many biblical scholars would say this ought not to be translated as a single sentence. The first half "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created." is indeed the end of the inital account.

The rest "In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, ..." is the beginning of the second account.

Since the original Hebrew had no punctuation to mark divisions between sentences, and whoever put in verse divisions placed both in the same verse, it has been tempting to translate them as a single thought from a single writer.

But it is highly unlikely that the two accounts were written by the same author.

 

[gluadys]

Hey Jereth, boy I wish Glaudys was back I hope this thread catches her eye when she returns, she has a lot more information than I do on the interpretations of this passage.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I don't really have a lot to add. But here goes anyway.

As some of you already know, I am a fan of the Documentary Thesis in respect of the composition of the Torah. Since I am not a Hebrew scholar, I cannot make a detailed defence of this position, but it seems to have the support of the majority of theological schools in Europe and North America.

In regard to the creation accounts, the relevant conclusions of the Documentary Thesis are these:

Genesis 1:1-2:4a is a P document. P(riestly) documents dominate the Torah accounting for over half the text. However, except for the finishing touches provided by the final editor, they are also the last (or second last) of the documents to be written. They date to the time of the Babylonian exile, though experts differ as to whether they were written just before, during or just after the exile.

Genesis 2:4b to the end of chapter 4 is a J document. J (or Yahwist) documents are the earliest of the documents which became part of the Torah. They appear to have been written not long after the death of Solomon, by a citizen of Judah.

Because the two documents have different authors, each was written independently and should be interpreted in this light. IOW chapter 2 & following were not written as an extension and clarification of chapter 1, but were independently composed.

The dating confirms this. The J documents were written two or more centuries before the P documents. This means that J had no "chapter 1 of Genesis" to refer to and no need to make his account compatible with that of Genesis 1. It is a completely independent composition.

The author of Genesis 1 did have the creation story of J at hand to refer to, but chose to tell a different story, one that highlighted the theology of creation in a different way. It appears that he was not concerned about making the details of his account agree with those of J's account. So it too, is an independent account.

It was the editor, the one who brought these various documents together, who chose to include both accounts and to set the P document in front of the J document, rather than put them in the order of composition.


Now I would also agree that God inspired both J and P and also the editor. So I conclude that God is not overly concerned with a factual historical account of creation, but with a good theological account that needed both stories.

Given this history of composition, I would have to agree with Assyrian on the meaning of the passages. When we view Genesis 2:4b ff as an independent and early document, not an extension or clarification of the other creation account, we must view it as dealing with the whole of creation. So when it says there was no plant in the ground, that is what it means---no plant, not just farm plants. When it says the animals were formed in an attempt to find a companion for the man, this is the first creation of animals, since as far as J is concerned, the creation in Gen. 1 did not exist. He had never heard of it because that account had not been written yet. The perosn who would write it had not even been born yet.

 

[jereth]

Given this history of composition, I would have to agree with Assyrian on the meaning of the passages. When we view Genesis 2:4b ff as an independent and early document, not an extension or clarification of the other creation account, we must view it as dealing with the whole of creation. So when it says there was no plant in the ground, that is what it means---no plant, not just farm plants. When it says the animals were formed in an attempt to find a companion for the man, this is the first creation of animals, since as far as J is concerned, the creation in Gen. 1 did not exist. He had never heard of it because that account had not been written yet. The perosn who would write it had not even been born yet.

Thanks for your input glaudys. Like you I am not a hebrew scholar, but I agree it is fairly clear that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are separate accounts composed independently of each other. The attempts to harmonise them (usually by YECs) such as "farm plants" and "God had formed the animals" are driven by a misguided desire for the passages to make chronological sense, which is in turn based on the assumption that the passages are co-dependent.

With regards to toledoth and Genesis 2:4 I am interested to hear your comments on post #13. Feel free to tell me if my analysis is flawed.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The presenting of the animals to Adam is one of the most important, and least understood, events in all of biblical history.

 

[Calminian]

Why the TE subforum? Even us brain-damaged YECs <grin> can appreciate the beauty, structure and spiritual significance of scriptural passages -- just because we also consider them historical does not diminish the spiritual meaning at all. In fact, to us, it is pretty cool the way God has worked through history to accomplish His will *and* to reveal Himself and His plan to mankind.

For an example we can all probably agree on. Jesus had 12 disciples. I don't think this was an arbitrary number - but rather one chosen to point both backward to God's working through His chosen people and possibly forward to His kingdom as well. He really *did* have 12 disciples, but it doesn't diminish the spiritual connections or implications or beauty.

Luke recounts Jesus' lineage back all the way to Adam. It is amazing to see how God worked through history to preserve the proper lineage for the promised messiah.

And yes, we can even appreciate literary constructions, analogies, and poetry within scripture. Just because we think the genesis tale is true history does not mean that we cannot rejoice and enjoy the rich beauty and spiritual meanings as well.

Historicity does not degrade spirituality.

This is a great point. Not to change the subject, but, I've always wondered why the Framework Hypothesis is considered a TE view or supportive of a TE. Literary arguments don't seem to support any particular view. In fact (and you may disagree with me on this), one could make a case that, if anything, they compliment historical interpretations. The disciples analogy never occurred to me. The actuality of there having been 12 makes the symbolism work. If there were really 100 disciples and the writers only said there were twelve to convey some literary message, this would at best confuse the message.

And yes, that's absolutely true -- Jesus' parables are not less instructive because they are stories not history. I think things get interesting when folks disagree about a passage being historical or not -- but either way, the passage can be beautiful, can be expressed in lots of literary forms, and can have lots of spiritual instruction for us.

This is true, but would seem to be problematic in stories contradictory to actual history. If all evidence pointed to the fact that Jesus had 100 initial personal disciples, but the writer changed it to 12 to paint a literary picture, this would pose all kinds of problems. It would confuse both the historical and the non-literal message. Just some thoughts.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I've always wondered why the Framework Hypothesis is considered a TE view or supportive of a TE.


it is not.
for instance, http://www.girs.com/library/theology/syllabus/pcacreation.html,
the PCA creation report (btw a very good introduction to the issues) allows FI only if candidate is OEC. no TE need even apply it is expressedly condemned.

most PC's i've discussed the issue with are FI not concillatory like H.Ross. as far as that goes, i think H.Ross is even more wrong in his methods than is AiG, he is if anything even more scientism infected than YECism.

but that is a different thread.

 

[jereth]

This is a great point. Not to change the subject, but, I've always wondered why the Framework Hypothesis is considered a TE view or supportive of a TE. Literary arguments don't seem to support any particular view.

At one level you are correct -- in and of itself, a literary argument does not necessarily negate historicity.

However, the point of the Framework Interpretation is that the days of creation appear to be a thematic rather than chronological ordering. So whilst the creation is a fact of history, the way in which it is presented in Genesis 1 is not.

A gripe: It is interesting how YEC supporters enjoy calling the Framework Interpretation a "hypothesis", as if it is something newfangled, untested and unproven. When in reality the majority of biblical scholars (yes, conservative ones) have held for a long time that it is the correct understanding of Genesis 1. The framework interpretation was given formal expression as far back as 1984 (Blocher, In the Beginning).

 

[Calminian]

At one level you are correct -- in and of itself, a literary argument does not necessarily negate historicity.

However, the point of the Framework Interpretation is that the days of creation appear to be a thematic rather than chronological ordering. So whilst the creation is a fact of history, the way in which it is presented in Genesis 1 is not.

A gripe: It is interesting how YEC supporters enjoy calling the Framework Interpretation a "hypothesis", as if it is something newfangled, untested and unproven. When in reality the majority of biblical scholars (yes, conservative ones) have held for a long time that it is the correct understanding of Genesis 1. The framework interpretation was given formal expression as far back as 1984 (Blocher, In the Beginning).

I call it FH because that's what its proponents call it (the one's I've come across anyway). If you want to call if FI, no problem. And what better way to emphasize a theme then to actually create in accordance with it? If you are God, ,why not?