Literal translation of Genesis and Bible - issues?

[mr24shoe]

could someone give me some general leads concerning the conflicts that arise w/ literal interpretation of Genesis, and the Bible as a whole?

ie: Gen1 and 2 seem to contradict to me:
1 - God created everything in a particular order over 6 days.
2 - God recreated some things, and in a different order, and it reads as if it's over a much quicker time period (1 day? 1 hour?)

Thanks!

 

[moogoob]

Therein lies a problem, easily resolved if you consider:

a)Genesis isn't literal, wasn't meant to be literal, shouldn't be taken literal.
b)It's a compilation work of ancient Hebrew oral tradition, and Genesis 1 and 2 are two different versions of the same story.

See, what apparently was a contradiction, solved using logic.

 

[mr24shoe]

I'm in the beginning stages of debating w/ a friend of mine about evolution, but need to solve the "age of earth" issues before I can talk about evolution. But, I'm going into this with an open mind, and who knows...I may be convinced that it _should_ be literally interpreted.

 

[metherion]

Well, keep in mind that it can't be 100% literally true if there is EVEN ONE CONTRADICTION.

Keep that in mind.

And then figure out where the birds came from (the waters in Gen 1 and the earth in Gen 2).

That's, you know, aside form all the scientific stuff. And the other contradictions.

Metherion

 

[Merlin]

They are both narratives of events that happened.

 

[Oncedeceived]

could someone give me some general leads concerning the conflicts that arise w/ literal interpretation of Genesis, and the Bible as a whole?

ie: Gen1 and 2 seem to contradict to me:
1 - God created everything in a particular order over 6 days.
2 - God recreated some things, and in a different order, and it reads as if it's over a much quicker time period (1 day? 1 hour?)

Thanks!

Genesis 1 is a literal narrative of Creation. Genesis 2 is the spiritual narrative of the creation.

They don't contradict, they are presenting two views of the Creation of the universe and the focused view in 2 of mankind's spiritual aspects.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi, Mr Shoe

could someone give me some general leads concerning the conflicts that arise w/ literal interpretation of Genesis, and the Bible as a whole?

ie: Gen1 and 2 seem to contradict to me:
1 - God created everything in a particular order over 6 days.
2 - God recreated some things, and in a different order, and it reads as if it's over a much quicker time period (1 day? 1 hour?)

Thanks!

Here's the 411 on Genesis 1 and 2:

• Genesis 1 is a detailed report of Creation in chronological order.
• Genesis 2 is a summary report in no specific order.

Notice the palindrome in Genesis 2:4?

[bible]Genesis 2:4[/bible]

 

[dlamberth]

could someone give me some general leads concerning the conflicts that arise w/ literal interpretation of Genesis, and the Bible as a whole?

ie: Gen1 and 2 seem to contradict to me:
1 - God created everything in a particular order over 6 days.
2 - God recreated some things, and in a different order, and it reads as if it's over a much quicker time period (1 day? 1 hour?)

Thanks!

Neither match up with the reality with what we actually see.

.

 

[AV1611VET]

Neither match up with the reality with what we actually see.

I wonder why?

Do you suppose maybe because in Genesis 1 and 2 there was a water canopy around an earth that was one tropical paradise consisting of one supercontinent, etc?

 

[HypnoToad]

And then figure out where the birds came from (the waters in Gen 1 and the earth in Gen 2).

That's just a horrible example. The Hebrew of Gen.1 means, "let the waters teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the sky." It does not say "birds came from the water." It's a common mistake of skeptics to take an English version as authoritative while ignoring the original language.

If you want to believe there are contradictions, that's your choice, but this one is just an invalid example.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I wonder why?

Do you suppose maybe because in Genesis 1 and 2 there was a water canopy around an earth that was one tropical paradise consisting of one supercontinent, etc?

No, it was the pixies.

 

[WilliamduBois]

It's a common mistake of skeptics to take an English version as authoritative while ignoring the original language.

I think AV might take some offense to that. He's far from being a skeptic, unless it's about scientific evidence.

IIRC, he once said something like "if your original hebrew disagrees with the KJV, it's wrong".

So who are we then to believe, hm?

 

[HypnoToad]

I think AV might take some offense to that. He's far from being a skeptic, unless it's about scientific evidence.

IIRC, he once said something like "if your original hebrew disagrees with the KJV, it's wrong".

So who are we then to believe, hm?

Of the two positions, you should believe whichever is the more reasonable and logical. Examine why most scholars on the subject feel the original languages would be more authoritative, and then examine why a few extremists claim a later translation is more authoritative, and come to your own conclusion.

 

[WilliamduBois]

Of the two positions, you should believe whichever is the more reasonable and logical.

I'll take hidden answer number 3, please: both positions are wrong: the scriptures, whether original or translated, are not a literal account.

Examine why most scholars on the subject feel the original languages would be more authoritative, and then examine why a few extremists claim a later translation is more authoritative, and come to your own conclusion.

My own conclusion is that they are written accounts that contain some history, lots of myths and stories, and a moral guide for those times.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'll take hidden answer number 3, please: both positions are wrong: the scriptures, whether original or translated, are not a literal account.

Actually, there's nothing hidden about it -- the most reasonable and logical conclusion is that they're not literal in any language.

 

[metherion]

t's a common mistake of skeptics to take an English version as authoritative while ignoring the original language.

Point taken. However, I personally have encountered more KJV-only YECs than non-KJV only YECs, so when I give general advice, I tend to give it as if it were talking to KJV-onlyers.

However, for there entire OT, even just the entire Pentateuch, to be literal and inerrant, there are several other things, like the bats and their bird-hood or lack thereof.

Metherion

 

[HypnoToad]

I'll take hidden answer number 3, please: both positions are wrong: the scriptures, whether original or translated, are not a literal account.

My own conclusion is that they are written accounts that contain some history, lots of myths and stories, and a moral guide for those times.

Irrelevant.

My point had absolutely nothing to do with whether the accounts should be taken literally or not. My point was whether the original language or a later translation is a more accurate representation of the intended message.

 

[HypnoToad]

like the bats and their bird-hood or lack thereof.

Another horrible example.

Choice among animal classification systems is subjective. Just because they didn't use the modern scientific definition of "bird" doesn't equate to using a wrong definition.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it was the pixies.

Ya --- make fun --- then you'll wonder why later on you don't understand it.

This is why we have to explain ourselves over and over and over.

 

[mr24shoe]

with the different translations, specifically, the original text vs. KJV, what are the differences in Gen1 and Gen2? What problems arise/diffuse with a literal reading between the two?