Literal translation of Genesis and Bible - issues?

[mr24shoe]

I was forwarded this article in relation to this topic:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2194

long read, and I get lost in some of the wordiness (it's late).

Is there some "interpreting" going on?

Anyway…long read for late Sunday night, but a first read through I caught this:
Genesis 1 is chronological, revealing the sequential events of the creation week, whereas Genesis 2 is topical, with special concern for man and his environment.
To me, Gen2 also has a chronological order to it. When strictly reading literally…
God created man, then the garden, then put man in the garden, then beasts/fowl, then saw man was lonely, so created woman.

 

[Nathan Poe]

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.

Neither if translation is your sole criteria.

 

[HypnoToad]

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?

Well, the bird example.

The KJV does, in fact, imply that birds came from the water in ch.1; whereas the Hebrew does not.

Neither if translation is your sole criteria.

Huh?

 

[metherion]

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.

Wait, the Bible is meant to be literal science where it's actually myths, and not literal science where it's actually literally classifying things?
Now I'm REALLY confused.

If the Bible is supposed to be 100% literal inerrant science, meant to be used in biology, archeaology, geology, and astronomy (as many YECs claim it is), then it should be able to get something simple like classification right. Especially in a part where God is specifically listing what types of animals things are and whether they can be eaten.

Also, what definition would there be? "If it flies, it's a bird." What about insects? "If it flies and doesn't have 6 legs it's a bird." What about insects with legs ripped off? "If it isn't an insect and it flies, it's a bird." What about ostriches and penguins and other flightless birds? Does gliding count as flying? (Flying fish and flying squirrels to name a few) Do it have to lay eggs to be a bird?

Metherion

 

[captheo]

The first list of creation is in order of occerence and time frame. Note A day was defined when light was created.
The second list of creation was in order of importance (To G_D). If the time frame seemes differant it could be du to translation proublams. Keep in mind that Hebrew is a picture type language and one word could be viewed differantly depending on context.
Hope this Helps.
E.J.G. ThD

 

[HypnoToad]

Wait, the Bible is meant to be literal science

Strawman. I never made any such claim here.

Further, there's a difference between being literal, and being modernly scientific.

And a classification system based more on appearance is not "wrong", it is different.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

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.

And herein lies your biggest mistake - people actually understand what you are saying, AV. They just know it's wrong.