Genesis Is the understanding the of Ancient Hebrews.It doesn't have to be scientific.

[dougangel]

Was the Garden of Eden literal? The bible presents it in other verses as literal.

Before I answer that I want you to be sure you aware of this and explain this.
Genesis 1

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 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.”

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

God created them male and female together after the animals

Genesis 2

5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Genesis 2

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Genesis 1 Order

day 1 Night and day

day 2 water and sky

day 3 ground, sea, plants

day 4 sun, moon and stars

day 5 fish and birds

day 6 land animals, man and women

Genesis 2 order
ground, water, man, plants, animals, woman.

Man and woman isn't created together in Genesis 2.
Genesis 1 and 2 seem to be different accounts. They don't add up can you explain this ?

 

[AV1611VET]

Genesis 1 and 2 seem to be different accounts. They don't add up can you explain this ?

Do you want the NIV to do it, or are you a KJVO?

The NIV happens to do a good job.

 

[KWCrazy]

Genesis 1 Order
Genesis 2 order

The problem with your argument is that Genesis 2 is NOT a creation account. It begins,
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.

Genesis 2 addresses the origin of man and establishes why he was created. It begins the narrative of man's relationship with God. What you are posting is a common mistake made by people who rely more on the false narrative of others than in the clear wording of the Scriptures. The Sabbath and marriage were given to man; one for the preservation of the church and the other for the preservation of mankind.

 

[-57]

Genesis 1 Order

day 1 Night and day

day 2 water and sky

day 3 ground, sea, plants

day 4 sun, moon and stars

day 5 fish and birds

day 6 land animals, man and women

Genesis 2 order
Gen 2 is pretty much a re-cap. ground, water, man, (cultivated plants)plants, had created the animals, woman.

Man and woman isn't created together in Genesis 2. Gen1 is the "big picture"
Genesis 1 and 2 seem to be different accounts. They don't add up can you explain this ?

I trust you stand corrected.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Eze 28:13
Eze 36:35
Joel 2:3
Isa 51:3

You need to present verses in context. Odds are that those are little snippets taken out of context. Unless it actually says that that part of the Bible is to be taken literally there is every reason, if you are a Christian, to assume that it is only a poetic reference.

 

[-57]

The problem with your argument is that Genesis 2 is NOT a creation account. It begins,
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.

Genesis 2 addresses the origin of man and establishes why he was created. It begins the narrative of man's relationship with God. What you are posting is a common mistake made by people who rely more on the false narrative of others than in the clear wording of the Scriptures. The Sabbath and marriage were given to man; one for the preservation of the church and the other for the preservation of mankind.

there are two types of groups that use this argument. The first group is those that try to disprove the bible...find error. The second group are the Theo-Evos who need to make Genesis a myth which they think allows evolutionism to be forced into the bible.

 

[-57]

You need to present verses in context. Odds are that those are little snippets taken out of context. Unless it actually says that that part of the Bible is to be taken literally there is every reason, if you are a Christian, to assume that it is only a poetic reference.

If you say so.

 

[dougangel]

Do you want the NIV to do it, or are you a KJVO?

The NIV happens to do a good job.

Not sure what you're talking about. I did paste in NIV. You should talk to Christian Forums. When it's blue it's there translator.
but, I actually look at a few translations now a lot. NIV is my main. Then KJVO and sometimes New King James. Or I go to that website where there are a few translation if it's really controversial

An example of this is in the creation poem day 2 is the word Firmament(KJV) vault(NIV) expanse(NASB)
The Hebrew raqia (the “firmament” of the KJV, ASV, RSV, et al.) means an “expanse” (Davidson, 1963, p. DCXCII; Wilson, n.d., p. 166), or “something stretched, spread or beaten out” (Maunder, 1939, p. 315; Speiser, 1964, p. 6). Keil and Delitzsch offered this definition in their monumental commentary on the Pentateuch: “to stretch, to spread out, then beat or tread out...the spreading out of air, which surrounds the earth as an atmosphere” (1980, 1:52).

In an article discussing the “firmament” of Genesis 1:6-8, Gary Workman observed that this word is an “unfortunate translation” because it “not only is inaccurate but also has fostered unjust criticism that the Bible erroneously and naively pictures the sky above the earth as a solid dome” (1991, 11[4]:14). Strictly speaking, of course, “firmament” is not actually a translation of raqia at all, but rather, more accurately, a transliteration (i.e., the substitution of a letter in one language for the equivalent letter in another language) of an “unfortunate translation.” Allow me to explain.

The Septuagint (a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek produced by Jewish scholars in the third century B.C. at the behest of the powerful Egyptian pharaoh, Ptolemy Philadelphus, for inclusion in his world-famous library in Alexandria) translated raqia into the Greek as stereoma, which connotes a “solid structure” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1967, p. 774). Apparently, the translators of the Septuagint were influenced by the then-popular Egyptian view of cosmology and astronomy [they were, after all, doing their translating in Egypt for an Egyptian pharaoh] that embraced the notion of the heavens being a stone vault. Unfortunately, those Hebrew scholars therefore chose to render raqia via the Greek word stereoma—in order to suggest a firm, solid structure. The Greek connotation thus influenced Jerome to the extent that, when he produced his Latin Vulgate, he used the word firmamentum (meaning a strong or steadfast support—from which the word “firmament” is transliterated) to reflect this pagan concept (McKechinie, 1978, p. 691).

In his Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words , Old Testament language scholar W.E. Vine stressed:

While this English word is derived from the Latin firmamentum which signifies firmness or strengthening,...the Hebrew word, raqia, has no such meaning, but denoted the “expanse,” that which was stretched out. Certainly the sky was not regarded as a hard vault in which the heavenly orbs were fixed.... There is therefore nothing in the language of the original to suggest that the writers [of the Old Testament—BT] were influenced by the imaginative ideas of heathen nations (1981, p. 67).
Raqia denotes simply an expanse, not a solid structure (see Harris, et al., 1980, 2:2218). Furthermore, the actual substance of the expanse is not inherent in the word. For example, Numbers 16:38 juxtaposes raqia and pahim (plates), suggesting literally an “expanse of plates.” Here, “plates” specifies the actual material involved in the expansion. In Genesis, “heavens,” not solid matter, is given as the nature of the expanse (Genesis 1:8,14,15,17,20). The original context in which raqia is used does not imply any kind of solid dome above the Earth.

Expanse wins. Firmament (KJV) wrong Egyptian translation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not sure what you're talking about. I did paste in NIV. You should talk to Christian Forums. When it's blue it's there translator.

So does the NIV answer your question or not?

And for the record, how many times did God put Adam into the Garden in Genesis 2?

Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you say so.

Think a little and you will realize this too.

 

[dougangel]

So does the NIV answer your question or not?

And for the record, how many times did God put Adam into the Garden in Genesis 2?

Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Well I just told you. But I'll make it clearer. The original Hebrew word is suggesting a expanse. Not a solid border like a firmament or a vault so The NIV isn't good either.

 

[RDKirk]

You do know the NT authors presented the creation account as literal and historical? Paul in his letter to Timothy instructed the women to conduct themselves in a certain way based upon Eve, deception and the fall. Why would Paul instruct the women on something that wasn't real?
Paul wrote sin and death entered through one man....just like Genesis informs us. Why would Paul present something as factual based upon something you say was symbolic?

To speak directly to that question, a teacher might very well depend on a well-known fable to make a teaching point without needing it accepted as a historical fact. The teaching reference isn't proof of historical actuality.

 

[-57]

To speak directly to that question, a teacher might very well depend on a well-known fable to make a teaching point without needing it accepted as a historical fact. The teaching reference isn't proof of historical actuality.

Do you have any other biblical examples? Perhaps when Paul speaks of the cross Paul is just referring to a fable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you have any other biblical examples? Perhaps when Paul speaks of the cross Paul is just referring to a fable.

It seems that you do not understand why a wise Christian would realize that the referrals to Genesis in the Bible are poetic. We know that the various stories in Genesis never happened. If you claim that they have to be taken literally then you are claiming that those passages are not true either. An all or nothing approach to the Bible leaves you with nothing.

 

[RDKirk]

Do you have any other biblical examples? Perhaps when Paul speaks of the cross Paul is just referring to a fable.

Of course, in that case he knows eye witnesses. But my point was that a teaching reference to an event is not evidence of the reality of the event, it's only a teaching reference. I've used "The Matrix" as a spiritual warfare teaching reference.

 

[Hoghead1]

The reason some think Gen. 2 is a creation, a second creation account, is that they are trying to force two conflicting chronologies into one. So the idea is Gen. 1 is the creation of the world as a whole. Gen. 2 moves on to a separate creation event that occurred after he world was all made. Doesn't work, because you cannot rationally for all the personnel involved. There are two women, Eve and then a mystery woman in Gen. who exists in addition to Eve. Medieval Christianity argued her name was Lilith and she was Adam's first wife. She lived to ride on top of Adam during sex. Adam didn't like this and so God gave him Eve, who at least stays underneath. Lilith runs off, becomes a witch, torments children. Many a crib had "God save us from Lilith" written on it. So unless you believe in some sort of preAdamites, and most Christians don't, it makes no sense to see Gen. 2 as a second creation.

 

[dougangel]

there are two types of groups that use this argument. The first group is those that try to disprove the bible...find error. The second group are the Theo-Evos who need to make Genesis a myth which they think allows evolutionism to be forced into the bible.

Well No. There's argument about it because there are some problems with the chronological order and the wording is really, the understanding of ancient man of the universe. There's a lot of things unexplained. As Christian's I think we have to be honest about that.

 

[-57]

It seems that you do not understand why a wise Christian would realize that the referrals to Genesis in the Bible are poetic. We know that the various stories in Genesis never happened. If you claim that they have to be taken literally then you are claiming that those passages are not true either. An all or nothing approach to the Bible leaves you with nothing.

Spoken well by by a biblical ignorant atheist.

 

[-57]

Of course, in that case he knows eye witnesses. But my point was that a teaching reference to an event is not evidence of the reality of the event, it's only a teaching reference. I've used "The Matrix" as a spiritual warfare teaching reference.

When one of you can explain why Paul instructed the women based upon a non-event...get back to me.

 

[-57]

Well No. There's argument about it because there are some problems with the chronological order and the wording is really, the understanding of ancient man of the universe. There's a lot of things unexplained. As Christian's I think we have to be honest about that.

My post 64 showed your errors concerning the order.