Creation or Evolution?

[lucaspa]

18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."
Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.

Now, compare that to Genesis 2:7 "then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground"

This is the same as Genesis 2:19.

This negates your argument

With the Animals, it doesnt say he created them once Adam was in the garden, it says God had made them and bought them to the man.

Let's face it, Adam is already in the Garden when God says that he needs a helpmeet. Then the text -- read literally -- has God make the animals the same way He made Adam.

In Gen 1, it says that man was created-male+female.

In Hebrew the words are "men" and "women". Both plural.

Now, Jesus did use Genesis 1 as an argument for the sanctity of marriage in Mark 10 and Matthew 19. Jesus is arguing against Deut 24:1. It is interesting that Jesus says 1) that a man -- Moses -- wrote the scriptures and that 2) the man got it wrong.

Since the Jews believed that the entire Torah was scripture, Jesus is telling us that Genesis was written by humans, too.

Notice that they theological message Jesus is drawing from Genesis 1 works just as well that God created by evolution as it does by God speaking men and women into existence. In either case, humans are a sexually reproducing species and were created that way.
Picture of the sanctity of marriage-1 man-1 woman-1 flesh.

A picture of Christ and the church.(bride)
Adams bride was made from his side while he was asleep--
Bride of christ being made from Christ's side-flow of blood and water that came from his side while he was asleep on the cross

Now you've completely abandoned a literal reading of this part of scripture and are looking at it as pure symbolism. Yet you castigate theistic evolutionists when we do that!

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

OR

you should look at the beam in your own eye before commenting on the dust mote in your neighbor's eye.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Basically, Genesis contains "signature lines" that identify the writer of a particular section. The signature lines are called "toledoths" or also "colophons". The are the lines with the phrase, "these are the generations of ... " (some versions say, "this is the account of ... "). The name at the end of the phrase is who wrote the preceding section. Those sections were originally individual stone tablets that eventually got compiled into Genesis by Moses.

One of the neat results of this theory is that it's possible God Himself wrote Gen.1:1 - 2:4 (in the same manner that He wrote the commandments for Moses). And then Adam would have written 2:5- 5:1.

You can read a little about the theory here:
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/Toledoth.html

I don't care for the Documentary Hypothesis because (for one reason) it's not based on modern archeology which shows that writing began much earlier than the DH supposes. The DH also has single verses being attributed to multiple authors sometimes - it really just hacks the text to pieces.

Interesting, thank you.

If you'll note in my previous post, my understanding of the documentary hypothesis includings writing in the time of the judges, and this specifically because of archaeological evidence of earlier writing. The older, nineteenth century forms that have nothing written until after the exile are, I agree, just plain silly.

 

[gluadys]

If you'll note in my previous post, my understanding of the documentary hypothesis includings writing in the time of the judges, and this specifically because of archaeological evidence of earlier writing. The older, nineteenth century forms that have nothing written until after the exile are, I agree, just plain silly.

Not just your understanding either. Those who criticize the Documentary Hypothesis are often critcizing weaknesses in the early formulations which have since been corrected.

Current dating related to the Documentary Hypothesis has all the main writing occurring before the exile, and only the final redaction occurring during or shortly after the exile (no later than the time of Ezra). Some consider the J section to be as early as the reign of Solomon.

And this does not preclude any of the writers from using material from earlier writings, which could date back to the time of the judges or even to Moses.

The idea that the Documentary Hypothesis requires a late date for the invention of writing is just ludicrous. Some 19th century Europeans may have harboured such notions, but archeology has shown how wrong they were, and like all good science, the Documentary Hypothesis has been revised in the light of the evidence.

Oh, and XianJedi, it is not the Documentary Hypothesis that chops up the text. It was the editor who compiled the separate documents into one. If you want to believe it was Moses, blame Moses for the editing, not the scholars who deciphered where he made the cuts.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

I'm not a betting woman, but if I had to bet, I would say that lucaspa is winning this argument, IMO.

 

[Assyrian]

The first is about "plants" and "herbs". The second is about "plants of the field" and "herbs of the field" - a subset of plants, not plants in the general sense of ch.1.

So is the use of 'LORD God' in chapter 2 a subsection of 'God' in chapter 1?

You said.

1. Different name does not equate to contradiction. By your reasoning, Jesus can't be God, because His name is "Jesus" and not "Elohim" or "Yahweh". My mom calls my dad, "Jerry"; but I call him, "dad", and his birth certificate says, "Gerald". You seriously want to say all three "contradict" each other??

That makes much more sense. It is a different person writing using a different name for God. But it is the very same God. This makes sense in both Documentary and Tablet hypotheses.

But if it is a different author with a different style of writing then the phrase 'of the field' is stylistic too. The author uses it all the time plant of the field, herb of the field, beast of the field, it means wild plants and wild animals. It does not refer to a subsection of plants and beasts. When the author says Gen 2:5 No plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up. He is saying there were no plants, at all.

In the same way the author of chapter 1 choses three representative from each of the categories he describes. He speaks of God creating three different types of vegetation, three types of creatures from the sea, three kind of land animals. It doesn't mean anything not in the list wasn't created by God. It is telling us God created every plant and animal, bird and fish.

It says, "And God formed the animals and brought them to Adam" (paraphrase, but identical structure). This shows the timing of the showing of the animals, but the timing of the forming is an assumption.

The following sentence has the same structure:
"My father built a model car and showed it to me when I was ten years old."

The sentence specifies when the model was shown. But it does not specify when it was built. The sentence structure allows for the model to have been built long before I saw it. Likewise, there's nothing in the text forcing it to mean that the animals were made after man was made.

The Hebrew doesn't work that way. It lists a series of consecutive events with God creating the animals in the middle of the sequence. It does tell us when God made the animal. He made them after he said it was not good that Adam was lonely.
And God said Adam was lonely
And God formed the animals
And brought them to Adam
This is part of a sequence of events running through the whole story.

 

[lucaspa]

If you'll note in my previous post, my understanding of the documentary hypothesis includings writing in the time of the judges, and this specifically because of archaeological evidence of earlier writing. The older, nineteenth century forms that have nothing written until after the exile are, I agree, just plain silly.

You seem to be including auxiliary statements as essential parts of the DH. The essential statements of DH is that the Torah is an edited document compiled from multiple sources written by different people at different times. The exact identity of the authors of the various sources and the time when they were written are auxiliary hypotheses. These can change without affecting the main statements.

My understanding is that the 19th century scholars were speculating about when the document was edited, not when each of the components was written. And there is internal evidence to suggest that P was written during, or shortly after, the Babylonian Exile. J is definitely earlier.

My understanding is that DH says that the Torah is a compilation from 4 different sources.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora1.htm

The sources were written at various times, but they could each draw on oral traditions that were older than the actual time the documents were put on paper.

 

[lucaspa]

This shows the timing of the showing of the animals, but the timing of the forming is an assumption.

No, it's not.
Genesis 2:15 "The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to till it and keep it."

Genesis 2:18 "Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him.' So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field."

The sequence is clear, as is the literal form of the verb "to make" -- future tense. So the timing of the forming is not an "assumption", but an inevitable conclusion from a literal reading. The animals were not made until AFTER Adam was made.

In Genesis 1, of course, all the animals are made BEFORE humans.

 

[HypnoToad]

Sorry, but in Genesis 2:18-19 the birds and animals are also created from dust by God's own "hands".

Which doesn't contradict Gen.1.

Ch.1 just says "let the waters teem with living creaturs ...," and, "let birds fly above the earth," with no mention of method. As to land animals, ch.1 specifically says, "let the land produce living creatures," - they were produced out of the land, which fits perfectly with having formed them out of the ground in ch.2.

And in Genesis 1:25 people (both men and women in the Hebrew) are spoken into existence.

Nowhere does ch.1 say they were "spoken" into existence - all it says is they were "created" with no mention of method.

But supposedly we aren't talking about different people calling the same person by different names, are we? Supposedly we are talking about one author referring to one deity. Therefore we SHOULD have the same name thruout.

Thank you for providing so persuasive an argument that we have 2 different stories told by different people.

If you'd been paying better attention to the discussion, you'd see that doesn't matter.

"yom" can be either a 24 hour day or a time period -- such as a festival. But beyom can't. When the prefix "be" is added to yom in Hebrew, it forms a word that is limited to a 24 hour day.

Got a reference for that? Everywhere I've looked the term up so far says "in the day" is just a phrase meaning "when" without being a 24 hr. day.

Genesis 1 does say "men" and "women", both plural in Hebrew. Genesis 2 has a single man and a single woman. That is a contradiction.

Are you refering to "male and female He created them" (1:27)? Perhaps you can explain something then. In Exodus 12:5 it states, "Your lamb must be perfect, a male, one year old ...." In this instance, "male" is singular. I have a Hebrew interlinear, and the Hebrew of these two instances of "male" are identical to each other (same consonants, same pointers). What makes "male" in Genesis plural, while "male" in Exodus is singular? Otherwise, what "men and women" in Gen.1 are you refering to?

In Genesis 1:14 we have God saying "Let there be" and in 1:16 we have "and God made the two lights". So in Genesis 1 we have the precedent that "let there be" by speaking is the same as "let us make".

No, all it shows is that there is more than one method allowed under the term, "make". God, in one instance, makes by word, and in another instance, makes by forming out of the ground.

Genesis 6:3 "Then the Lord said "My spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." That's NOT referring to the Flood.

Yes it is. It was 120 years from when God said that to the time the flood happened.

Why do you think the nephilim are not part of the creation account? Where did they come from? You aren't seriously proposing that they have existed forever, like God, are you? There is only ONE God, and that God is creator of the heavens and the earth. If you have the nephilim around forever and not being created, then you are denying the first statement of the creeds. You are denying God as Creator.

Hardly.

There are a few possibilities, and none of them suggest what you claim here.

One is that the nephilim were offspring of demons and human women. There's nothing there that "denies God as Creator".

Another is that the nephilim were extremely powerful, despotic, and tyrannical human warlords, which also doesn't "deny God as Creator".

Let's test this. Genesis 1-3 is not the only place where we have "elohim" and "yahweh" used. Both are used in Genesis 6-8 (the Flood). So please, just where in that story does it shift from a focus on "the entirety of creation" to a "personal level"?

I didn't say "Elohim" means the text focuses on creation, I said it's used to portray God's power and sovereignty, and that's why it's used in THAT instance.

It might as well be the Documentary Hypothesis. It's the same thing with a different name.

Then you don't know what one or both of the theories are, because they are certainly not the same.

Of course, you can't have Moses as the compiler because the end of Deuteronomy has events that occurred after Moses' death.

First, I never said Moses compiled Deuteronomy, I said he compiled Genesis. Second, you apparently have no idea what divine inspiration is, as it would allow Moses to write anything, regardless of when it occurred.

Oh, and XianJedi, it is not the Documentary Hypothesis that chops up the text. It was the editor who compiled the separate documents into one. If you want to believe it was Moses, blame Moses for the editing, not the scholars who deciphered where he made the cuts.

No, I'll blame the scholars for their misinterpretations.

But if it is a different author with a different style of writing then the phrase 'of the field' is stylistic too.

Assumption. Different names does not necessarily translate to ALL differences being stylistic.

No, it's not.
Genesis 2:15 "The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to till it and keep it."

Genesis 2:18 "Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him.' So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field."

The sequence is clear, as is the literal form of the verb "to make" -- future tense. So the timing of the forming is not an "assumption", but an inevitable conclusion from a literal reading. The animals were not made until AFTER Adam was made.

The "helper" (singular) that "will be made" is woman, who was, in fact, not made yet. If "helper" suddenly refers to the animals, then you imply that God had no idea that the animals weren't suitable for Adam.

Also, your "So" in the phrase, "So out of the ground ...," is a very selective interpretation not specified by the Hebrew text.

 

[Assyrian]

But if it is a different author with a different style of writing then the phrase 'of the field' is stylistic too.

Assumption. Different names does not necessarily translate to ALL differences being stylistic.

No. It is just the simplest reading of the text supported by the authors use of the phrase through the text
plant of the field, herb of the field, beast of the field. Even birds are not simply birds, they are birds fo the air.

In contrast you are claiming an author used phrase to denote a different meaning from another author - without any explanation given highlighting the difference between the two uses.

John spoke of being 'born of God' gennao ek tou theou and 'born again' gennao anothen.
Peter said we were 'begotten again' avagennao.
Paul spoke of 'regeneration' paliggenesia and 'a new creation' kainos ktisis.
What would you think of an exegesis that claimed without any evidence other than the different phrases used by the different authors, that John, Paul and Peter were all talking about different things? That being a new creation was different from being born of God? Or that 'begotten again' is a subset of 'born again'?