lucaspa said:
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.
Assyrian said:
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.
lucaspa said:
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.