Eve was already planned before she was created from Adams rib.

[Jonaitis]

I would have to disagree and say the layout and wording of Genesis 1 is more "logical" and describes the species ability to reproduce.

I found this insightful as to what PloverWing is referring to:

Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a poetic text. It is metered, and probably the writer(s) intended for it to be sung as a hymnic chant. Rhyme is not all that important in Hebrew poetry, but Hebrew poems commonly use repetition, chiasmus, parallelism, and other rhetorical schemes and tropes. The Genesis 1 text uses "high style" and those artistic devices common to Hebrew poetry--especially catachresis, anaphora, and parallelism. To indicate these artistic qualities here, most NIV translations reproduce the text with hanging indentation to mark the poetic structure. Each section begins with an anaphora: "And God said . . ." Each section ends with epistrophe: "And there was evening, and there was morning--the . . . day." Likewise, after the first two days, we have the artistic repetition of the phrase "And God saw that it was good," leading up to a final crescendo, "and it was very good" in Genesis 1:31. This structure is high poetry in the best Hebrew style.

Contrast that with the material following. Genesis 2:4-3:23 is a non-poetic text. It is written in prose rather than in poetic lines--no meter. It does not use anaphora and parallelism the same way as that first section. To indicate the non-poetic nature of the text here, most NIV translations break the text into paragraphs. In terms of literary devices, the primary schemes and tropes are puns providing Hebrew folk etymologies. For instance, the narrative voice tells us that humanity (the Hebrew word adam) is called adam because God made him from adamah (ground or dust). The folk etymology provides an etiology explaining why the word for "woman" in Hebrew sounds so much like the Hebrew word for "man."

What are the J, E, and P Texts of Genesis?

 

[YahuahSaves]

I found this insightful as to what PloverWing is referring to:

When I said I disagree that Genesis 1 is similar to poetry, I meant in the emotional sense. The layout and wording is logical in describing a series of events and how the continuation of the species is by reproducing (replicating) after it's own kind, naturally and not supernaturally.

 

[Jonaitis]

When I said I disagree that Genesis 1 is similar to poetry, I meant in the emotional sense. The layout and wording is logical in describing a series of events and how the continuation of the species is by reproducing (replicating) after it's own kind, naturally and not supernaturally.

Just like Psalm 136?

 

[YahuahSaves]

Just like Psalm 136?

No. that's poetry inspired by Genesis 1

 

[Jonaitis]

No. that's poetry inspired by Genesis 1

I would encourage you, though, to look into the J, E, and P hypothesis, because it may be of no coincidence that Psalms refers to Genesis if they were co-authored by the same people. We take these texts for granted. There is obviously a political influence in some of it, especially in Samuel and Kings imo.

 

[YahuahSaves]

I would encourage you, though, to look into the J, E, and P hypothesis, because it may be of no coincidence that Psalms refers to Genesis if they were co-authored by the same people. We take these texts for granted. There is obviously a political influence in some of it, especially in Samuel and Kings imo.

You believe they were co-authored? I agree the bible had political influence.

In Genesis 1 though, it's more a descriptive story than poetry, and it's "logical" in the sense that everything created was created for a reason and given categories. The writing style separates each verse into "days" (chapters) like turning a page in the mind of the reader.

Example:

Genesis 1:3-6

3 Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.”

Page turn 》 "And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day."

6 Then God said, “Let there be a space between the waters, to separate the waters of the heavens from the waters of the earth.” ” 7 And that is what happened. God made this space to separate the waters of the earth from the waters of the heavens. 8 God called the space “sky.”

 

[Jonaitis]

You believe they were co-authored? I agree the bible had political influence.

I have ample reason to believe some thing that aren't accept in the orthodox point of view, based on what I have found in my own investigation of things. Some of the Psalms resemble strongly some Akkadian pagan hymns, for example. I don't really want to get into that right now. It can be very discouraging for others, like it was for me when I found them (but I am now much stronger spiritually than ever).

In Genesis 1 though, it's more a descriptive story than poetry, and it's "logical" in the sense that everything created was created for a reason and given categories. The writing style separates each verse into "days" (chapters) like turning a page in the mind of the reader.

Example:

Genesis 1:3-6

3 Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.”

Page turn 》 "And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day."

6 Then God said, “Let there be a space between the waters, to separate the waters of the heavens from the waters of the earth.” ” 7 And that is what happened. God made this space to separate the waters of the earth from the waters of the heavens. 8 God called the space “sky.”

The elements of poetry are there, like the parallelism. Plus, you're reading this in English, though, right?

 

[YahuahSaves]

I don't really want to get into that right now. It can be very discouraging for others, like it was for me when I found them (but I am now much stronger spiritually than ever).

I understand. I have gone through bouts of discouragement when it comes to the entirety of scripture, but then I focus on the reality of Jesus and I'm alright again. He is the key to it all and essentially, all the scriptures point to Him, regardless of the narratives or influence.

The elements of poetry are there, like the parallelism. Plus, you're reading this in English, though, right?

Yeah, maybe that has an impact when it comes to interpretation, but we are discussing the English translation from the OP.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Yeah...it does seem like 2 separate narratives of day 6 of creation though. Perhaps why it appears like a contradiction. I still believe God planned to make Man and Woman, just like he planned Jesus would be the lamb slain before the creation of the world. I don't know why Adam's "lonely" narrative entered into scripture at all.

Genesis 2 (Chapter 2 really should begin at 2:4 imo) is zooming in on man and giving specific details regarding the background in order to (or which lead into) the fall in chapter 3. This narrative style was practised at the time, for example there's a Sumerian stele (or Babylonian, I can't remember) which does the same thing. It gives an overview of a military campaign and then in order to go into detail it follows the same structure of Genesis where it repeats the event it's zooming in on and then proceeds to go into greater detail. The majority of these issues stem from forcing modern narrative styles and structures onto cultures that existed thousands of years ago, which many also where intended to be for oratory purposes.
Also see the Literal translation of the beginning of Gen 2:4: “These are the generations” which denotes that the next part is the succeeding or subsequent thing to flow forth from the preceding stated thing or rather takes place after the stated thing has occurred. Like a genealogy but for events. It has already presupposed creation. Genesis 2:5 takes us back to the time the author is zooming in on to provide details.

Now the main problem here which causes people to claim a contradiction or that there's 2 accounts of creation stems from assuming that genesis 2:5 excludes vegetation existing in any way. When in fact it only excludes the appearance of the "shrub of the field" & "plant of the field" and you're given the reason for those things not appearing here: "for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground". The vegetation in question which is referenced in Gen 2:5 is not vegetation in general but that of crops and that which is gained/grown by cultivation of the ground, the distinction here is between wild vegetation & farmed/cultivated vegetation. To add to this it seems that the author is aware of the fact that other vegetation does exist during this time because in the subsequent verse he offers an explanation: "But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground".

The mist here is preceded by the conjunctive “but” which indicates how The Lord grew and sustained vegetation without the rain. The author feels the need to explain this in the verse that succeeds v.5 where we are told that there was no rain, so he is consciously aware of it or at least seems to be.
This being the case would mean that vegetation already existed at the time of the creation of man that occurs in the subsequent verse 7, but the appearance of cultivated vegetation had not yet happened because there was no rain on the earth and no man to cultivate the ground. It seems to me that while this chapter of Genesis does have creation involved (creation of man), it seems to be giving specific details regarding the background/prior events in order to (or which) lead into the fall in chapter 3. There's no reason to assume 2 creation accounts, in fact to do so would be to force a modern lens onto a foreign document which does not fit. Like a square peg into a circle hole.

I got the information regarding vegetation from a citation within InspiringPhilosphy's video on the topic at 6:32 of the video:

Now I don't really agree with the video itself (or a lot of the theology presented by him in general) but the information cited at 6:32 I think will produce the same "oh" moment in whomever is reading this regardless of your stance on textual criticism.

Re: The beginning of Gen 2:19 it's describing what has occurred (Edit: recalling the creation of animals and then giving more detail). It's not a chronological second account of creation. It brings you back to the event of the creation in order to go into more detail, just like the vegetation above. It's not stating a separate timing of the creation. This was to be read to illiterate people and the oratory practises of the time are clearly linked to the narrative structure (which also is why there's a lot of repetitions which convey meaning & emphasis within scripture). The oratory practises are fused with the narrative pracitses. This isn't unique to Hebrew literature, this specific Hebrew literature (scripture) just happens to be 100% true.

Brother another helpful resource is InspiringPhilosphy's video documentary on the documentary hypothesis. I recommend giving it a watch, it will blow your mind as to some of the reasoning that has been accepted as consensus amongst secular & sometimes Christian academia:

Another documentary you might like that I found helpful was Pattern of Evidence's "The Moses Controversy", though it is one you have to pay for.

If about 95% of "contradictions" were presented as one author going into more detail (the gospels for example) then you wouldn't even think there was a contradiction. It's an outside force imposing the lens on which to read the text through. The other 5% I've found that cause confusion have been things like timing not being explicitly stated, language issues in English that are hard to translate, perspective issues & etc.

Brother always remember 1 Corinthians 2:14. Those who bring charges against Scripture impose their lens upon God's Word and they also do it in a way they wouldn't for anything else. You don't see anybody claiming that Marius or Sulla didn't exist or are a myth for example. This comes entirely from demonic forces inherently hostile to God which is why there's such a forceful attack on Christianity and why all other forms of heathenry are socially protected & promoted. Sorry for this mini novel but I hate it when the world pits The Word and love of Our God against His saints. It's absolutely vile.
[Edit: Sorry I just realised how that sounded. I didn't imply that's what you were doing but was speaking about the world & forces that pit God's word against His saints and creates the issues above.]

God bless .

 

[YahuahSaves]

It gives an overview of a military campaign

I'm getting distracted a lot right now, so I will read & respond to your post a little later.... but your quote above reminded me of another thread perhaps you would like to comment on?
Thread; The plan of creation: Did God create humans to prove a point?

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I'm getting distracted a lot right now, so I will read & respond to your post a little later.... but your quote above reminded me of another thread perhaps you would like to comment on?
Thread; The plan of creation: Did God create humans to prove a point?

Don't feel it's necessary to respond mate, I posted it not just for you but also for anyone who wanders on here and sees the comments saying that there's 2 accounts of creation and then walks into somebody in the world who claims the 2 accounts are contradictory.

And yeah I'll be happy to take a look

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I'm getting distracted a lot right now, so I will read & respond to your post a little later.... but your quote above reminded me of another thread perhaps you would like to comment on?
Thread; The plan of creation: Did God create humans to prove a point?

Also I just realised I responded to the wrong person in this thread in my book length comment >_<. My bad

 

[YahuahSaves]

Also I just realised I responded to the wrong person in this thread in my book length comment >_<. My bad

Huh? Do you mean you didn't mean to respond to my OP?

 

[coffee4u]

Another thread made me think of what appears to be a contradiction in scripture. Many people seem to think God made Eve solely because Adam was "lonely". The scripture does say it. But that seems to be a gross assumption that somehow Eve was just an "afterthought" and God had no intention of creating humans with equal value. He created all the animals to be "male and female", why would he create Adam first and then Eve? My guess is if he created them at the same time, God could not guide Adam and build a relationship with him as easily if he already had a mate to depend on (perhaps).

I'm not a fan of KJV, but since it was one of the first English translations, I thought perhaps the error was in the translation, but it and my (NLT) version both say "male and female" He created them. I don't know what verse 27 is about, so someone with a KJV bible will have to verify the internet version.

Genesis 1:26-28
King James Version

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Then immediately in Genesis 2, we read:

Genesis 2:18-20

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is just right for him.” 19 So the Lord God formed from the ground all the wild animals and all the birds of the sky. He brought them to the man[a] to see what he would call them, and the man chose a name for each one. 20 He gave names to all the livestock, all the birds of the sky, and all the wild animals. But still there was no helper just right for him.

So is this apparent contradiction in the OG old Testament? I would like to know if it's a mistranslation of the original hebrew. If not, it does seem like God created Eve as an afterthought according to Genesis 2.

My take has always been that God wanted Adam to feel incomplete first, to know what being without felt like, so that he would love and appreciate Eve as he should.

 

[YahuahSaves]

The majority of these issues stem from forcing modern narrative styles and structures onto cultures that existed thousands of years ago, which many also where intended to be for oratory purposes.
Also see the Literal translation of the beginning of Gen 2:4: “These are the generations” which denotes that the next part is the succeeding or subsequent thing to flow forth from the preceding stated thing or rather takes place after the stated thing has occurred. Like a genealogy but for events. It has already presupposed creation. Genesis 2:5 takes us back to the time the author is zooming in on to provide details.

So perhaps the writing style is the issue then and not the actual creation story?

It's not a chronological second account of creation. It brings you back to the event of the creation in order to go into more detail, just like the vegetation above. It's not stating a separate timing of the creation.

I suppose just like a lot of the scriptures, it doesn't go into enough detail to expel doubt (perhaps intentionally), since we're to live by faith in order to be pleasing to God.

XThis isn't unique to Hebrew literature, this specific Hebrew literature (scripture) just happens to be 100% true.

What is? The account of creation?

[Edit: Sorry I just realised how that sounded. I didn't imply that's what you were doing but was speaking about the world & forces that pit God's word against His saints and creates the issues above.]

Well to be clear, I do struggle with reconciling an omniscient God with some of the storylines that seem to suggest he isn't in fact all knowing. Genesis 1 perhaps is clear in the hebrew, God created "Adam" (man) in his image. And the problem is the modern English translations that reword it to say "& female", and "human".

But for it to actually say Adam's potential loneliness is the reason for creating a female, (when it establishes God’s "image" we reflect is to give human beings authority over the earth's creatures) and the fact nothing could multiply and fill the earth without a way to do so, makes it seem like the writer was adding something that wasn't something God would inspire someone to write. (Him being the creator and preplanning everything in advance). The other example of this I state in my other thread, that shows God asking Adam who told him he was naked after eating of the tree... was that a rhetorical question?
I'm in no way casting doubt on God or Jesus because I 100% believe he is real, but it doesn't mean that just because I'm a Christian I don't have questions about scripture. Not everything is revealed by the Holy Spirit to everyone and certainly not all at once. If you've been shown by the Spirit what these particular scriptures entail, then do share, by all means. Expelling doubt is extremely important.

 

[YahuahSaves]

My take has always been that God wanted Adam to feel incomplete first, to know what being without felt like, so that he would love and appreciate Eve as he should.

Interesting take... similar to my theory that God wanted to build that creator/created relationship first. He tells us throughout scripture we can't live apart from Him.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Brother

I'm a female btw (just throwing that out there)

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Huh? Do you mean you didn't mean to respond to my OP?

I meant I responded to the wrong comment. I should have responded to the person who said there was different writers.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I'm a female btw (just throwing that out there)

Oops, sister it is from now on. Please forgive me.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

So perhaps the writing style is the issue then and not the actual creation story?

In a sense yeah. But I would put it on us as we write and read differently now, not different enough for The Bible not to make sense but enough to create tiny problems like this where it can be confusing in some parts. The practise of writing letters to be read aloud was still ongoing during new testament times, a lot of the epistles were meant to be read aloud in churches and authors like Cicero composed letters for the specific purpose of oratory which include repetitions as well.

What is? The account of creation?

Not the account of creation but both the fusion of oratory with writing and also giving an overview of everything, then going back into the story and seemingly to us starting a new narrative when in reality it's the same narrative but the author is going into more detail. They just wrote differently than us. That's why I mentioned the stele earlier on, it has the same structure.

Well to be clear, I do struggle with reconciling an omniscient God with some of the storylines that seem to suggest he isn't in fact all knowing. Genesis 1 perhaps is clear in the hebrew, God created "Adam" (man) in his image. And the problem is the modern English translations that reword it to say "& female", and "human".

Struggling is fine, personally in my mind there's a distinction between questioning and doubting. Doubting doesn't really seek an answer whereas questioning is the pursuit of one. Questioning combined with prayer = 1 Thessalonians 5:21 & Philippians 2:12-13.

But for it to actually say Adam's potential loneliness is the reason for creating a female, (when it establishes God’s "image" we reflect is to give human beings authority over the earth's creatures) and the fact nothing could multiply and fill the earth without a way to do so, makes it seem like the writer was adding something that wasn't something God would inspire someone to write. (Him being the creator and preplanning everything in advance). The other example of this I state in my other thread, that shows God asking Adam who told him he was naked after eating of the tree... was that a rhetorical question?
I'm in no way casting doubt on God or Jesus because I 100% believe he is real, but it doesn't mean that just because I'm a Christian I don't have questions about scripture. Not everything is revealed by the Holy Spirit to everyone and certainly not all at once. If you've been shown by the Spirit what these particular scriptures entail, then do share, by all means. Expelling doubt is extremely important.

One thing that might help with the specific nature of God's omniscience is that pre-planning does not mean pre-determining all things. I was a Calvinist for nearly a year (super long time I know) and I really believed omni-determinism, coming out of it was a real struggle but coming out of it meant that I realised (due to scripture) that God in His omniscience has given us real choice. Sovereignty =/= predetermining all things. Some things sure, but not every molecule. Like a King it means He has every single right and is able to intervene as He pleases and given His attributes it means He can do this with all things.

Also God giving Adam a partner because of loneliness is not the only reason he did so, in fact I would say that He did so because we are created in the image of the Triune God (Genesis 1:26 "Our"). There can be more but lets for sake of argument say that it is true that God pre-planned (you could use the phrase accounted for) everything in advance including the fact that He would know Adam would be lonely (which I believe), that means He also planned a wife for Him in order for Adam to see His need for a partner, that Adam himself is not to rely on his own power. Also while we share in creation and God loves us greatly, ultimately everything created is for Christ Colossians 1:16. God has redeemed a people who love Him and will be with Him forever, think about how awesome that is.

The other example of this I state in my other thread, that shows God asking Adam who told him he was naked after eating of the tree... was that a rhetorical question?

I've always read it that way yeah. That He asked the question so that Adam would realise what He's done, as you can see in the following verse Adam immediately blames Eve and by extension God by saying "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate”. A question isn't always connotative of a desire to truly know the answer to something, we ask questions to make statements all the time.

I struggled with this also but it was 2 Chronicles 32:31 (Edit: got a number wrong for the verse) and it caused me a lot of stress, turns out the Hebrew word for know also means reveal. God did this not just for our benefit because we're reading the story and lesson from it but for Hezekiah's and the people of Judah.