Alleged Contradiction between the order of events in Genesis

[gluadys]

This is funny. Did you know, this book got a great review from the secular U.S. News and World Report? Real spiritual insight they have!... And, I don't think Zondervan was the publisher on this one.

Is Zondervan the only reliable publisher of religious material? Do you have God's guarantee on that? It is interesting that the secular press picked up on it. Mostly they ignore all books on religion, conservative AND liberal.

I think you need a second opinion for sure... Try this link.

Who wrote, "Who wrote the Bible?"

Its simply an old argument with a new skirt on...

Grace and truth, GeneZ

Do you generally dismiss an author on the basis of book reviews rather than giving them a fair chance to make their case by reading what they actually wrote?

Gleason Archer's article is interesting. I don't have the scholarly background to say he is right or wrong on the dating of the texts, but I do note that a good deal of his review is an ad hominem attack on Friedman and on scholars of the Wellhausian school generally. Having read Friedman's work, I know that such attacks are not found in his book.

Archer also comes to this conclusion:

There remains one other preliminary observation to be made concerning this book. Since the basic conclusion of the author is that the Bible is nothing more than a human literary production, with no divine authority behind it, it becomes quite doubtful whether the Bible should be taken seriously. If Friedman is right, the Bible is basically a fraud. It purports to be a record of special revelation from God, disclosing the true purpose of life and the meaning of human experience. It claims to explain to us the moral law ordained by God, the nature of our guilt, and His loving provision of a Savior who came to pay the penalty for our sin and to deliver us from its power. But if, as Dr. Friedman implies, the Lord God has never spoken to man, and all the biblical references to His having done so are nothing but lies, then there is no religious value in such a tissue of deception and fraud as the Bible turns out to be.

It is very important to note that this is a gratuitous conclusion of Archer's not a conclusion of Friedman's. Friedman nowhere implies that the bible is a fraud nor that God has never spoken to humans. Archer's conclusion stems from his own pre-conceptions. They are not an essential element of Friedman's thesis.

 

[christian-only]

Universal creation, then creation local to Eden.

 

[gluadys]

Why do you have a problem of that? God, (Elohim) refers to the Trinity. Lord, refers to the Son, or an individual of the Trinity doing something.

Oh? What blue sky did you pluck that idea out of? Where in scripture is that connection made?

In the OT the word Lord, usually printed in all caps (LORD) indicates the use of the tetragrammaton (YHWH) in the Hebrew. The two terms YHWH and Elohim are often used together as a phrase pointing to the same deity. (YHWH Elohim=the LORD God or YHWH God). The distinction you imply is belied by the actual use of the terms.

In the Bible you are going to see the name of God interchanged quite often. Not simply in Genesis 1, and 2. That is sheer nonsense, and only can work with those walking in ignorance.

Yes, and interchanged not at random but according to a predicatable pattern. The author who wrote the Garden of Eden account ALWAYS uses YHWH (sometimes in conjunction with Elohim). The author who wrote chapter one NEVER uses YHWH in Genesis. It is not simply that different terms are used, but that they are used in a non-random pattern that makes the change significant.

The Trinity is conferring with each other in Genesis 1. "Let us make man in our image," etc. In Genesis 2, it is the Son doing the work. No big deal, unless its when some pseudo intellectuals try and disprove the Bible.

This is imposing a Christian interpretation on a writer who was not a Christian. A text has to mean first and foremost what the writer intended it to mean. Therefore, importing a later theology into an earlier time when that theology did not exist yet is an incorrect way of getting at the meaning of the text.

 

[christian-only]

Universal creation, then creation local to Eden.

This is imposing a Christian interpretation on a writer who was not a Christian. A text has to mean first and foremost what the writer intended it to mean.

1 Pet 1:10-13 makes it clear that the prophets did not understand their own prophecies and God told them not to worry about it because they were not prophecying to themselves but to us upon whom the ends of the world are come.

 

[gluadys]

Universal creation, then creation local to Eden.


1 Pet 1:10-13 makes it clear that the prophets did not understand their own prophecies and God told them not to worry about it because they were not prophecying to themselves but to us upon whom the ends of the world are come.

It does not say at all that the prophets did not understand their own prophecies. It only says they inquired about WHEN those prophecies would come to pass and were informed by the Spirit that it was for a future generation.

 

[christian-only]

Even so, its still quite obvious that the answer to this question is Universal creation, then creation local to Eden. Only Bible-haters can miss that.

 

[GenemZ]

I thought genez's original post was saying that Gen. 2 was a continuation of Gen. 1 because the term "out of nothing" was used in Gen. 1 but not in Gen. 2. Basically that God created everything "out of nothing" in Gen. 1, then took what He had created and made everything out of the raw materials. Or did I misunderstand the post?

You understood. Perfectly. Good to have a witness, for I need one.

One thing , though. In Genesis 1, not all things were being created out from nothing. Only certain things....

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

Some animals anyway. Of the 8 times 'bara' is used in Gen. 1 all but one refer either to the heavens and earth or to humans. The exception is Gen 1:21 "And God created (bara) great whales, etc.

Interestingly, 'bara' is not used in1:25.

Thank you! You make an interesting point. One I never saw before. I always skimmed through after reading "bara" for all the sea creatures and birds (it was not just meant for the whales) as they were all included in this, "bara."

Yet, I am seeing a new perspective for this. Why create something out from nothing for sea creatures and birds? But, not with the land animals?

Its has nothing to do with having a soul. I realize this now. It had to do with the medium of their existence! God could not form the sea creatures out from the elements of water! And, he could not create birds out from the elements of the air! So, for them, he needed to create their bodies out from nothing!

But, the land animals were made "asah" (designed = God saw it was good) to be from the elements of the earth. So, there was no need to create the land animals out from nothing. Man walked the earth, so his body was also formed from the elements of the earth. But man's unique soul was created "out from nothing." Bara!

Animals have no soul as we know it. They have inborn instincts, but no advanced ability to reason. Reason is what causes evil, and good. Animals do not create evil. A lion does not demand to be called an Ostrich. Nor, does a female goat demand to be the head of the household. Their instincts, though variable in how advanced they are, from creature to creature, always remain within a designed pattern. (But, outside conditioning beyond their control can at times alter the natural course that their instincts would take them. But, that's another topic all together.)

I am not ignoring your arguments. I am pointing out that they are moot if the chronology of writing I have pointed to is correct. If the first creation story to be written is the one that appears in chapter 2 any argument which suggests this writer knew the account in Genesis 1 and was refining/expanding/clarifying/focusing, etc. falls as error.

You sound like a brainwashed propagandist to me. Please, spare me, and keep an open mind? Just say that you can not see it at this time any other way? Rather than this is the way it has to be? I have already shown you that I am open for correction and willing to learn. Please, do not limit yourself in the way you are doing. There is always room for correction when needed if we remain humble, no matter how strong we may feel on a subject. That is, if we keep an open mind.

The earlier writer does not expand on the thought of a document which does not yet exist.

There is no absolute proof that there were two writers. You just find an affinity for such a type of thinking. So far, its something you would prefer were the truth. And, I am sure you see me likewise.

The historical linguistics of Hebrew is one of the means used to date Old Testament texts. And there is nothing illogical in it at all.

When I attended Bible College we had a Professor of Ancient Languages who once taught at Harvard, Stan Ashby. He never agreed with this premise, and neither have many respected Hebrew Scholars within both Judaism and Christianity. It is what I would bill as a "fine sounding argument." If one of those who I know and trust were to say this was what happened, then I may listen to your argument. But, be that as it may...

I have shown you that if you use the Hebrew structure and grammar, that Bara (creating out from nothing) does not appear as taking place in Genesis 2. And, if I were to accept the notion that Genesis 2, actually preceded Genesis 1? Then what was created out from nothing, followed things being made from things, that first needed to be created out from nothing!

Right, the sequences are not the same either way you look at it. But your whole argument is premised on the idea that the second account is not a separate account but a continuation of the first.

If what I have been telling you is truth. Then it is a logical conclusion.

Also, another point!

In Genesis 1, many times we see, "And God saw it was good."

God has the ability to see what is not yet, as if it already is. We see the word "asah" appearing throughout Genesis 1. This word can mean to make (or plan a design). God was planing certain things amongst the Trinity. They saw what was to be, as if it already was being... "and saw it was good." We are not there in this account as eye witnesses in the same manner as presented in Genesis 2. In Genesis 2, we can see, and it is not only God seeing.

In Genesis 1, it is only God who is said to be doing the seeing! Yet, if we rightly divide the Word of God, we must (and can) also discern what was actually taking place and materializing in Genesis 1. To determine that, we can simply look to Genesis 2 to see what had been already been materialized.

At the very end of the first chapter we see...

"1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day." niv

It only speaks of what he (asah) made (designed and planned). It does not mention the word, "created out from nothing" (bara) in this passage. God at that point looked over his plan and design for creation, and saw it was good. Genesis 2 is when God took what he saw and remained yet to be brought into time and space, and materialized them as he formed and built it from his blueprint found in Genesis 1.

That cannot be if the chapter 2 account was written centuries before the chapter 1 account. If that is the case, we have to see the chapter 2 account as existing independently for quite some time before chapter 1 was written. And we have to presume that the writer of chapter 1 was familiar with the story in chapter 2, so that any alterations in the order were a deliberate deviation from the order in chapter 2.

One can not work with something that must exist, before it exists!

Genesis 1, speaks of certain things being first created (bara) "out from nothing." If Genesis 2 was written before Genesis 1, then your so called revised Genesis 1, is not really a creation account. For nothing was created (bara) in Genesis 2! All that was done in the traditional Genesis 2 depended on something having already been created!

Your order of things?

"The man blew up the balloon."

"Then, the man designed and created the material for the balloon."

One can not build a plane before you have the needed materials and design plan. Your reversal of Genesis 1, and 2... does just that!

That is one reason I like Friedman's thesis (which is by no means original with him either). It eliminates the complex mental gymnastics of trying to reconcile the irreconcilable.

Fine. If that's what you need to satisfy your void? You're more than welcome to it.

Grace and peace, Gene

 

[GenemZ]

Is Zondervan the only reliable publisher of religious material? Do you have God's guarantee on that? It is interesting that the secular press picked up on it. Mostly they ignore all books on religion, conservative AND liberal.

The liberal ones do get their notice more often than the conservative. And, the liberals ones are more often from secular presses.

Do you generally dismiss an author on the basis of book reviews rather than giving them a fair chance to make their case by reading what they actually wrote?

It usually is an indicator, but not always. Yet, truly spiritual issues can not be properly understood by the secular mind, so why approach a secular printing house?

1 Corinthians 2:14 niv

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Gleason Archer's article is interesting. I don't have the scholarly background to say he is right or wrong on the dating of the texts, but I do note that a good deal of his review is an ad hominem attack on Friedman and on scholars of the Wellhausian school generally. Having read Friedman's work, I know that such attacks are not found in his book.

So? If the one trying rob the bank is polite, and those who caught him are upset and attacking him? Does being polite make one right? Cannibal murderer, Jeffery Dahmer was very polite as a person. SO? When will this myth end? Being polite has nothing to do about being truthful. Jesus absolutely ripped into the phony religious leaders of his day. He insulted and attacked them. The common folk did not have the discernment to see what they were. They saw these leaders as great men. So?

Gleason Archer is brillianat and speaks many different languages, not just Hebrew and Greek. He is more than qualified to spot a charlatan. He also sees how this joker is able to deceive those not qualified to refute his argument, like the common folk were situated with the religious leaders in Jesus day. Jesus absolutely insulted and offended them publically. Was Jesus wrong for using ad hominem attacks?

In WWll many used ad hominem attacks leveled against Hitler. There was great truth motivating such words. Someone along the way created a politically correct system forbidding such attacks, for the evil mind knows that such a reaction is due him by those who are able to see through him the quickest. He only wishes to frustrate even further the one who spots him before anyone else.

Movin on in grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Jesus' problem with the Pharisees was them - not their teachings, which in fact He said people should obey.

Archer's problem with Friedman is not (or shouldn't be) the man himself, but what he writes.

The situations are not comparable.

 

[GenemZ]

This is imposing a Christian interpretation on a writer who was not a Christian. A text has to mean first and foremost what the writer intended it to mean. Therefore, importing a later theology into an earlier time when that theology did not exist yet is an incorrect way of getting at the meaning of the text.

First of all, maybe you should know something about me. I was born a Jew, Brought up a Jew. Then I became born again. I know the before and after. I know the cultural mindset that many Jews view the world and the Bible with, and I can also know how the transformed capacity of being born again changes things drastically. There are simply certain things that the unregenerate mind can not grasp. And, there are certain things that the unrenerate mind seems sure about but out of blindness, not able to see.

Being born again does not guarantee one will have the truth on a matter. It only guarantees the potential. Being unregenerate guarantees that a wall is erected between the soulish man and the spiritual. In this day and age, only the Christian overall perspective concerning the Bible will be correct. For one must be born again to know matters concerning the Bible's intent. But, simply being Christian does not guarantee that one will be privy to the truth of a matter. One must have a correct relationship to their regeneration.

Before the Church age began many Jews were born again, as Jews. They had the spiritual gifts given in order to discern properly the spiritual issues of their day. After the resurrection and ascension of Christ, a new spiritual creation was created in the believers in Christ. Prior to the Church age, no OT saint had been given the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Only a few choice OT saints were given the filling of the Spirit, but never God taking up residence in the believer. Today, being a Jew without Christ makes one a secular reasoning being. Even in one's approach to spirituality! Even in regards to their past history when Jews were truly spiritual. Today's Jews can not get the correct perspective on what was taking place. Moses spoke with God. David spoke with God. Daniel spoke with God.

Today, unregenerate Jews wonder what it was like to speak with God. The spiritual communion that is established when one is born again today gives one an instant recognition of OT saints. These Jews today haven't a clue as to what took place spiritually in their people's ancient history. Yes, there are abuses by certain Christians who are unstable and stupid. But, no one can truly understand the mind of OT Jews without first being born again.

The Bible today has been delegated to be properly undertood by the born again Christian. Not Mr. Friedman. That does not mean he is isn't privy to historical background. He just will not be able to see and understand the true spiritual connotation where things do not line up according to secular reasoning. I, having come from Jewish stock and background, realize this from a unique perspective. I am not alone. There are other Jews that have made the same discovery. Some having been very religious prior to becoming born again will often times see it as a frightening contrast. Yet, they now can have peace because the very "essence" that motivated such a religious way of life has been found out to be a reality that they can now know, not just hope for.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

Jesus' problem with the Pharisees was them - not their teachings, which in fact He said people should obey.

Archer's problem with Friedman is not (or shouldn't be) the man himself, but what he writes.

The situations are not comparable.

It was with their teachings. Not just with them. Jesus called them liars.


John 8:44 niv

"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

Like father, like son. If Jesus approved of their teachings, he would have not called them liars.

Jesus taught the principle of honoring God's delegated authority to man. That one needs to honor the authority given, but not always what they teach or believe. If Jesus was honoring their teachings he would not have been in the position to be threatened punishment by them like he did. Matter of fact, he confronted them on their teachings.


Matthew 12:2 niv

"When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath."

Matthew 15:2 niv

"Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"

Did Jesus turn around and tell his disciples to obey their teaching on such matters?

He healed on a day their teachings would have said it was wrong to. Jesus told them that when they develop a disciple, that their teachings make him a worse child of Hell than before!

Matthew 23 niv

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are."

Jesus definitely attacked their teachings. He simply taught that the position of authority they had been given was to be respected. Which meant, they needed to put up with injustice until God removes them. Jesus never advocated rebellion.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

So Jesus had problems with both the people and some of their teachings.

How does this justify ad hom attacks that are completely irrelevant to the actual points being put forward?

If I say "You are wrong because you are a cretin. People with stupid handles like yours never have anything sensible to say", you'd know I was on shaky ground. This is ad hom. And it's a weak argument. Ranting at someone as Jesus did is not the same thing.

 

[GenemZ]

So Jesus had problems with both the people and some of their teachings.

How does this justify ad hom attacks that are completely irrelevant to the actual points being put forward?

If I say "You are wrong because you are a cretin. People with stupid handles like yours never have anything sensible to say", you'd know I was on shaky ground. This is ad hom. And it's a weak argument. Ranting at someone as Jesus did is not the same thing.

And? You have a point in this that is relavent to this debate? You must first prove the nature of the ad hominem to make your case. So far, the things you have been saying have turned out not to be correct.

To me, you simply were having a typical knee jerk reaction to seeing what you call ad hominems. Some people deserve to be called names... Especially, when you can see what a fraud they are. And, that they are knowingly trying to exploit the incapacity and ignorance of others who are not supposed to be equiped to evaluate properly the scam. What do you do for those who do not have the capacity for such things? Start teaching advanced Hebrew and Greek syntax ? Then, they'll see?

You have to be kidding. Gleason Archer was speaking from a point of proven integrity, expertise, and authority on the subject. He also explains what is required of those who wish to be Biblical scholars. Those who know him can take his word on it without having to sign up for eight years of teaching so they can figure it out for themselves. In some cases, that's how it works.

And, I did not see what I would call ad hominems being used in that article.

Link to Gleason Archer commentary

And excerpt from that page I will quote here:

"The fact is that there are Old Testament specialists who have been trained in schools like Harvard and Princeton and Chicago University, who have received earned doctorates, who have become skilled in all of the relevant languages and archeological discoveries, who have attended and participated in all of the leading scholarly conventions, and who have authored texts that are studied by college and seminary students all over the world, who still adhere to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. The whole structure of the Documentary Hypothesis is so vitiated with obscurantism and circular reasoning on the basis of unproved and unprovable hypotheses that it hardly deserves the status of true scholarship at all. It appears rather to be an exercise in biased subjectivism that shuns any serious consideration of conflicting evidence."

That was an ad hominem?


He was speaking from a commonly understood perspective which is widely understood and accepted amongst many Christian theologians. Yes, what he said denotes negativity towards the lack of integrity in Friedman's work. But, I did not see any name calling. That is, unless you are a liberal and do not like seeing yourself being not appreciated.

Yes! Its... aaaaa... wonderful world! ( if you can overcome it )

Grace and GeneZ

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

But if, as Dr. Friedman implies, the Lord God has never spoken to man, and all the biblical references to His having done so are nothing but lies, then there is no religious value in such a tissue of deception and fraud as the Bible turns out to be.

It is very important to note that this is a gratuitous conclusion of Archer's not a conclusion of Friedman's. Friedman nowhere implies that the bible is a fraud nor that God has never spoken to humans. Archer's conclusion stems from his own pre-conceptions. They are not an essential element of Friedman's thesis.

You're right - it wasn't ad hom that was the problem. It was misrepresentation.

Is that also justified if you dislike the position of your opponent enough to think they deserve it?

 

[GenemZ]

You're right - it wasn't ad hom that was the problem. It was misrepresentation.

It was? You mean to say, that the following is a misrepresentation?

But if, as Dr. Friedman implies, the Lord God has never spoken to man, and all the biblical references to His having done so are nothing but lies, then there is no religious value in such a tissue of deception and fraud as the Bible turns out to be

If God does speak to man, God will not contradict himself. What Friedman's theory states indirectly through implication, is that God did not speak to man when Genesis 1, and 2, were written. For, if he had, there would be no contradictions.

Yet, there are none. That is, if you did not continue to insist on ignoring the facts about the exact Hebrew words carefully chosen for each chapter.

But, I think when you ignore what's offered as an answer, maybe its just your nature to want to argue? It might ruin your diversion away from emptiness? If you were able to have a resolve in faith? Maybe, its a fear that life would be too boring for you then?... For, you would have no more challenge to prove and discover how smart you really are? Nothing to glory in, perhaps?

Subtract hominem...

Grace and GeneZ

 

[hesalive]

Some people deserve to be called names...

genez,

I have enjoyed reading and considering your posts. It was interesting to read your link to Mr. Archers review and to read and consider his references also.

I have found that there is a disturbing tone that many take on this forum. For some it is just a part of how they convey their thoughts, for others it is the sum total of their point.

I have not posted much on this forum, but this tone is the thing that seems to prompt me to do so more than anything.

To offer an example, I have found that while I dont agree with much of what Gluadys has to offer, her tone is gracious in contrast to Capt. Jack.

I would like to encourage you to post more as it seems you have some valuable perspective to share that is not represented to much degree on this forum. I would hope that you will not fall into the tone that seems so prevalent in discussing a divisive topic such as this.

God bless,
John

 

[GenemZ]

To offer an example, I have found that while I dont agree with much of what Gluadys has to offer, her tone is gracious in contrast to Capt. Jack.

Proverbs 7:21 niv

"With persuasive words she led him astray;
she seduced him with her smooth talk. "

If you could see how the Prophets, Paul, and Jesus expressed themselves at times in the original languages, being nice is not always the way of the Holy Spirit. Being gracious in the face of evil is not always God's modus operandi. Being gracious with the weak, is. If I quoted certain things Jeremiah said in the Hebrew while under the control of the Holy Spirit, or Ezekiel... I may get banned from this forum!

I would like to encourage you to post more as it seems you have some valuable perspective to share that is not represented to much degree on this forum. I would hope that you will not fall into the tone that seems so prevalent in discussing a divisive topic such as this.

Careful! Don't limit the Holy Spirit! We can do this because we place human standards upon God out of not knowing what God's Word shows us. Yet, I realize that one can become simply reactionary in one's flesh, because frustration and anger gets one out of fellowship, and he reacts in his flesh. That is what one needs to avoid. We are to respond to a challenge, not react. Response comes from being prepared. Grace leads truth to its goal. Reaction comes from not being prepared, and trying in frustration to provide what is lacking by one's own energy and ability. Wood, hay, and stubble.

Thanks, Bro for the cold cup of water! Our battle is not one of seeing if we can win a victory. It is to see if we are walking in what is the victory.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[nephilimiyr]

It was? You mean to say, that the following is a misrepresentation?




If God does speak to man, God will not contradict himself. What Friedman's theory states indirectly through implication, is that God did not speak to man when Genesis 1, and 2, were written. For, if he had, there would be no contradictions.

Yet, there are none. That is, if you did not continue to insist on ignoring the facts about the exact Hebrew words carefully chosen for each chapter.

But, I think when you ignore what's offered as an answer, maybe its just your nature to want to argue? It might ruin your diversion away from emptiness? If you were able to have a resolve in faith? Maybe, its a fear that life would be too boring for you then?... For, you would have no more challenge to prove and discover how smart you really are? Nothing to glory in, perhaps?

Subtract hominem...

Grace and GeneZ

I agree, this is nothing but a superb and wonderful reply!

Come back genez,

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Sorry, but since it was completely wrong in its insinuations about me, it was not a particularly good reply.