Genesis "and it was good" problem:

[Lukamu]

Genesis 1 describes how God created the heavens and the earth, "and it was good." This statement is repeated multiple times in Genesis 1.

I've heard from many people (including myself) who believe that Creation, at the beginning, was perfect. Everything was good, and there was nothing bad about it.

And I've believed this for a very long time, until I got into a lengthy discussion with someone, and read more closely in Genesis 2... "God saw that it was not good for the man to be alone." But God created everything so far, and "it was good". Here it says that "it was not good." How do you reconcile these two passages?

 

[RDKirk]

"Good" does not mean "perfect," if we define "perfect" as "finished," which it means in scripture. That's their primary error.

A contractor hires a concrete company to lay the foundation of a house. When the company has finished the work they've been hired to do, the contractor inspects it and signs off that it's "good." That doesn't mean the contractor is finished with the house. No translation I've seen fails to make the distinction between the Hebrew words for "good" and "perfect." They're not the same thing.

Scripture says of the creation of mankind:

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

God's intention from the very beginning was for man to be male and female. At the point that only the male had been created, God's original intention was not yet finished (that is, "perfect").

The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

It was "not good" for the male to be alone because God had never intended the male to be alone. Notice, even here God does not say that Adam is "not good." He says that the situation of Adam being alone is "not good."

Now, to be fully understanding of what scripture is doing here, scripture is really making a couple of foundational statements about what should be the relationship of a husband to a wife, and some people have taught on those statements.

 

[GenemZ]

Genesis 1 describes how God created the heavens and the earth, "and it was good." This statement is repeated multiple times in Genesis 1.

I've heard from many people (including myself) who believe that Creation, at the beginning, was perfect. Everything was good, and there was nothing bad about it.

And I've believed this for a very long time, until I got into a lengthy discussion with someone, and read more closely in Genesis 2... "God saw that it was not good for the man to be alone." But God created everything so far, and "it was good". Here it says that "it was not good." How do you reconcile these two passages?

Genesis 1:1 speaks of how God created the original heavens and earth "out from nothing." (Hebrew -bara)

Genesis 1:1 and between verse 2 has a Hebrew marker revealing that there should be a pausing before reading verse 2.

In the Massoretic Text in which the Jewish scholars
tried to incorporate enough "indicators" to guide the reader as to
correct punctuation there is one small mark which is technically
known as Rebhia which is classified as a "disjunctive accent" in-
tended to notify the reader that he should pause before proceeding to
the next verse. In short, this mark indicates a "break" in the text.
Such a mark appears at the end of Genesis 1.1. This mark has been
noted by several scholars including Luther. It is one indication

among others, that the initial waw (

) which introduces verse 2
should be rendered "but" rather than "and", a dis-junctive rather
than a con-junctive."
Without Form and Void - Chapter 1


The question that needs to be answered?
Why was there to be a pausing, and not a direct continuation of reading, one verse to the next?

Because, it was an effect designed in the reading of fading out of one scene and onto a next new scene.
Fading from one time and fading into to another scene like seen in movies that have fade outs from one
scene and fade into a time different than the one just left behind. Dickens "Christmas Story" has that effect
when Scrooge was entered into times in the past and was standing there seeing it as being in the present.
That is how Genesis 1:2 was being conveyed. The English reader unless guided by someone understanding
the Hebrew's way to conveyance would be lost as to what was really taking place!


In there lies the key as to why the earth "was' being found in ruin and chaos, and does not have to be read
as "became" ruin and chaos. Though we understand God would not have created it that way? Some logically
deducting by knowing what is there, will read it "became" in such a state.

That wording 'was -vs- became,' has been the big bugaboo and terrible distraction of tunnel vision exegetes
who keep refusing to acknowledge that what else is being conveyed which ends up dictating its meaning.

grace and peace ..........

 

[Jonaitis]

Genesis 1 describes how God created the heavens and the earth, "and it was good." This statement is repeated multiple times in Genesis 1.

I've heard from many people (including myself) who believe that Creation, at the beginning, was perfect. Everything was good, and there was nothing bad about it.

And I've believed this for a very long time, until I got into a lengthy discussion with someone, and read more closely in Genesis 2... "God saw that it was not good for the man to be alone." But God created everything so far, and "it was good". Here it says that "it was not good." How do you reconcile these two passages?

Genesis 1-2:3 is a different creation account than Genesis 2:4-25. I wouldn't synthesis the two together.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It is mythical literature, not history.

 

[Jonaitis]

It is mythical literature, not history.

"A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush. And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates."
- Genesis 2:10-14

There is no way these rivers meet at one point. Historical descriptions of these rivers identify the Gihon as the Nile, since Cush biblically refers to Ethiopia (see Josephus too). There is no way the Nile and the Euphrates branch from the same "river," when they flow down in opposite directions. The word used for "Nile" in other places is 'yeor' which literally means a "canal or stream flowing out" of the Nile in Egypt, and not the whole river itself. The origin location is obviously a mythical place that unites all the geographical regions known to Israel. This alone is a dead give away that it is not a real story, but a folk story that has a meaning within the cultural context designated for the Hebrews.

 

[public hermit]

Genesis 1 describes how God created the heavens and the earth, "and it was good." This statement is repeated multiple times in Genesis 1.

I've heard from many people (including myself) who believe that Creation, at the beginning, was perfect. Everything was good, and there was nothing bad about it.

And I've believed this for a very long time, until I got into a lengthy discussion with someone, and read more closely in Genesis 2... "God saw that it was not good for the man to be alone." But God created everything so far, and "it was good". Here it says that "it was not good." How do you reconcile these two passages?

I believe the goodness of creation will be revealed at the consummation. Even Paul says creation groans in anticipating of its freedom from futility and corruption. That's not to say creation is not good now; it's just not complete. It will be when God is all in all.

 

[GenemZ]

Genesis 1-2:3 is a different creation account than Genesis 2:4-25. I wouldn't synthesis the two together.

Genesis Two begins by telling us that God has ceased from anymore creating!​

​

​

​

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.​

By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day ​

he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because ​

on it he rested from all the work of creating [bara] that he had done." ​

Genesis Two is not even a creation account. Chapter Two begins with explaining how God was reesting from 'bara' - creating something out from nothing.

Genesis 2 has to do with what God was going to do with what had been created in Genesis One!

Adam? The Lord took the elements of the created earth he had created, and 'molded and formed' with it [jatsar] to produce the body for the male soul which He had created [bara] in Genesis 1:26-27.



(The Hebrew word bara means to create something out from nothing.
In Genesis 1:27 man's soul was created out from nothing! His Soul!

​

​

So God created [bara] mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created [bara] them;
male and female he created them."​

Human souls were created either male or female. The body for them would be provided in the next chapter.

In God's design the body was designed to conform to the designated soul that was to inhabit it .

There is only nly one creation account.

Chapter 2 begins with the results and the out come of what had been created in Chapter 1!

Chapter 2 begins by saying God stopped and rested from all his creating (bara) that he had done in Chapter One.

Hopes this ends confusion for some.
grace and peace ........

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Genesis 1 describes how God created the heavens and the earth, "and it was good." This statement is repeated multiple times in Genesis 1.

I've heard from many people (including myself) who believe that Creation, at the beginning, was perfect. Everything was good, and there was nothing bad about it.

And I've believed this for a very long time, until I got into a lengthy discussion with someone, and read more closely in Genesis 2... "God saw that it was not good for the man to be alone." But God created everything so far, and "it was good". Here it says that "it was not good." How do you reconcile these two passages?

There's various ways to try to crunch this down. One would be to just throw Genesis 1 away. That would solve a lot, for sure. It'd leave us with the 2nd chapter as "the beginning" and remove some of the apparent inconsistency between chapter 1 and 2. But if we did that we'd hear a lot of groans from the Church and from our Jewish friends for various reasons, not the least of which would be that many of us perceive Genesis 1 as "good" and an expression of God. So, scratch that, maybe?!

Another way, then, would be to look at the Hebrew form of "good" as well as its literary contexts. Being that I'm no expert in Hebrew, I'm only going to address one aspect of one immediate implication here. Folks can feel free to revise or bash what I say here, but I think we should look at the first use of this term in Genesis 1:4, and in Hebrew this term is "ṭō·wb," which generally means "of excellent quality" and it conveys the idea of there being a form of excellent workmanship made by a great craftsman. Light, therefore, is useful and a beautiful thing. Something God has made.

When we read this verse, we might notice that while God pronounces that the Light is Good, He doesn't say the same about the Darkness ... it remains unvalued.

We might ponder about what this apparent contrast means, however cryptically or mysteriously it is expressed. Does it just mean that the Light is useful and excellent and the Darkness is not? Does it mean the Darkness is 'bad'? Does it mean that there is an asymmetry of quality beween Light and Darkness? I'm not for sure we can tell, but the rhetorical distinction isn't something to ignore. It might imply that even in Genesis 1, there is already a circumstance in which some aspect of Creation isn't such a 'great thing' for the overall purpose which God intends for humanity. Where there's Darkness and its than optimal circumstances, there's a need for the improvement of Light ...

So, with this small motif of context in mind, we might also infer its application to Adam's circumstance in the 2nd chapter. Similar to the circumstance of darkness without light, Adam's isolation "isn't good." But, fortunately for Adam, he has a Creator who can "make the good come out of what isn't so good." And so, God does make the good come out of a not yet 'good' circumstance; He brings about ... Woman! And Yes, as Adam immediately was to see, she is a 'good' thing!

Anyway, these are my brief thoughts on this. Feel free to make of it what you will and to use it ... or to lose it. Whatever you think is "good."

Peace!

 

[Lukamu]

"Good" does not mean "perfect," if we define "perfect" as "finished," which it means in scripture. That's their primary error.

A contractor hires a concrete company to lay the foundation of a house. When the company has finished the work they've been hired to do, the contractor inspects it and signs off that it's "good." That doesn't mean the contractor is finished with the house. No translation I've seen fails to make the distinction between the Hebrew words for "good" and "perfect." They're not the same thing.

Scripture says of the creation of mankind:

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

God's intention from the very beginning was for man to be male and female. At the point that only the male had been created, God's original intention was not yet finished (that is, "perfect").

The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

It was "not good" for the male to be alone because God had never intended the male to be alone. Notice, even here God does not say that Adam is "not good." He says that the situation of Adam being alone is "not good."

Now, to be fully understanding of what scripture is doing here, scripture is really making a couple of foundational statements about what should be the relationship of a husband to a wife, and some people have taught on those statements.

That was my understanding, after thinking about it more. I think: God was not finished creating, so when God says, "It is not good..." it's like saying he was not finished yet, and here's his next step - he was not saying "Oops! That's not good! Better fix that!"

Though I wasn't using "perfect" to mean "finished," - and now I realize all the places in the Bible where it has that meaning, so I apologize for the confusion. I was using perfect to mean "unblemished" in the sense that there were no bad things included at the beginning of creation. (Which is what gave me pause when I read God saying, "It is not good...")

 

[Diamond72]

Genesis 1 describes how God created the heavens and the earth, "and it was good."

The Bible says: "God saw that it was good". It could be that God looked into the future to see the outcome of what He was doing. He always accomplishes his purpose. As a carpenter, if I am building a house or doing carpentry work, sometimes things go wrong. I then have to fix it and get it right so the outcome conforms to the plans or the blueprint. Once I had a job in the shop where I made shop prints from the architects plans. Sometimes I had to go back into the shop to make a pattern or temple.

Though I wasn't using "perfect" to mean "finished,"

Perfect in the Bible means whole, complete or mature. It means to bear fruit. If a tree does not bear fruit, then it is cut down and thrown into the fire.

 

[GenemZ]

This issue concerning "Good?"

A man can create an ideal automobile according to what the requirements are for one.
He looked it over and said its "very good!"

Yet, turn around? And, have him say its not good to leave it idling all the time.
That does not mean the auto is not good.

Adam was created good. But, it was not good to leave him lonely forever.

Someone is missing the context on that one.

God did not say man is not good. Only the condition he was in was not.
Yet, God provided the solution and saw it in Genesis One. God saw the end results of creating man in man's unfallen state.


grace and peace .........

 

[ViaCrucis]

Good, because it was lovely, beautiful, good; but not [yet] perfect. God's purposes for His creation was not finished, that work would involve creation growing. Mankind created with the potential for growth. Some of the ancient fathers of the Church were of the position that, in a sense, Adam and Eve were like children, they were supposed to learn and grow up; and so the Fall was a kind of adolescent rebellion. Adulthood, maturity, could only come through Christ. So the Incarnation itself was not merely a reaction to sin, it was God's purpose from the beginning ("All things were made through Him and for Him" Colossians 1:16).

So from view of many early Christian theologians, the Incarnation was always part of God's purpose and plan. The Fall wasn't part of the plan, but God's purposes cannot be thwarted, He will do what He intends to do; and take what is evil and use it for His good and glory.

IIRC, some theologians have also argued that, in a sense, "Let Us make man in Our image" has Jesus Christ in mind.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GenemZ]

So from view of many early Christian theologians, the Incarnation was always part of God's purpose and plan. The Fall wasn't part of the plan, but God's purposes cannot be thwarted, He will do what He intends to do; and take what is evil and use it for His good and glory.

I beg to differ. The Fall was definitely central to the plan....

All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written ​

in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Rev 13:8​

He was not slain after the world was founded.

The Fall was already in God's plan when man was being created.

Knowing that is supposed to make some of us ask the right questions.

grace and peace ........

 

[All Becomes New]

There is a different word for "Perfect" or "Complete" then there is for "Good." The word for "Perfect" is תָּמִים.

The only two times this word shows up in Genesis is here:

Genesis 6:9 CSB17
“These are the family records of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among his contemporaries; Noah walked with God.”
(Emphasis mine)
Genesis 17:1 CSB17
“When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him, saying, “I am God Almighty. Live in my presence and be blameless.”
(Emphasis mine)

In the first case, it is Noah compared to his contemporaries. The second, it is talking about Abraham being blameless since he would be in the presence of the Lord, which we see in Genesis 18.

For Noah and Abraham, it means, "complete, unscathed, intact" specifically for this verse, "complete, blameless, of people: an individual person."

Genesis 1:31 CSB17
“God saw all that he had made, and it was very good indeed. Evening came and then morning: the sixth day.”
(Emphasis mine)

When God says all he made was "very good" the word "good" means, "pleasing, good." טוֹב

 

[GenemZ]

When God says all he made was "very good" the word "good" means, "pleasing, good." טוֹב

"Pleasing good" because what God had set before Him will serve exactly his purpose for creating what we now have.

 

[All Becomes New]

"Pleasing good" because what God had set before Him will serve exactly his purpose for creating what we now have.

I'm not sure if you are disagreeing with me or not. But I would agree with this. It just doesn't mean God created everything perfect.

 

[GenemZ]

I'm not sure if you are disagreeing with me or not. But I would agree with this. It just doesn't mean God created everything perfect.

Perfect would imply "unable to fall."

 

[All Becomes New]

Perfect would imply "unable to fall."

Clearly not. As I said, in the case of Noah, it is compared to the rest of humanity. In the case of Abraham, it is that he was going to be in the presence of the Lord.

 

[GenemZ]

Clearly not. As I said, in the case of Noah, it is compared to the rest of humanity. In the case of Abraham, it is that he was going to be in the presence of the Lord.

Perfect was used interchangeably back then with the word "mature."

Please show me the verse your are referring to?