Rain and The Creation

[Andy D]

Hmm..but I thought the story would encompass the full story...not just one verse. I think the meaning of being put in the garden here is much bigger than just be a gardener as we see it today. I understand children may not understand the bigger picture for a while..but you can pretty much preach the Gospel by explaining the creation story to someone and then take them to the NT and Romans. I am sure large numbers have come to Christ through this simple, yet beautiful picture that has been given to us.

 

[Micaiah]

What like Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy? We are to have a faith that is childlike, not childish.

Okay, so you think the Creation story is a fairy tale. Now that is laying on the line. Again, the error of this mode of interpretation becomes evident. Why not extend the same criticism of the whole of Scripture, which is what many people do. According to TE's they are entitled to level this accusation at Scripture because man's theories contradict the word of God.

 

[theFijian]

Okay, so you think the Creation story is a fairy tale. Now that is laying on the line. Again, the error of this mode of interpretation becomes evident. Why not extend the same criticism of the whole of Scripture, which is what many people do. According to TE's they are entitled to level this accusation at Scripture because man's theories contradict the word of God.

I was not saying Genesis is a fairy tale. I was questioning the approach you suggested we take towards Genesis. If we took all doctrines the way a 5 year-old would then the Christian church would not last very long.

It's interesting how you imply that a 5 year-old can comprehend the YEC doctrine yet you must then do somersaults to explain the contradictions within it.

 

[Kelly]

Note to all:

I intend no personal insult here but I am sick to death of fundamental Creationists slurring what I do for a living and either implying I am part of some conspiracy or I and my colleagues are liars.

Yet this comes from people who admit they don't know what they are talking about and probably never got beyond high school math.

In other words shut up about science when you cannot follow it seemingly. And quit saying we scientists are liars.

Try a little humility sometime in ANY of your posts.

 

[herev]

Try a little humility sometime in ANY of your posts.

You'd think we could all agree on at least that!

 

[gluadys]

Then Paul needs to be informed not to make his statements look so factual or at least clarify where he's coming from. People could get the wrong idea.


|v13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
(NewT:1 Timothy 2:13)

How does Paul's reference to a myth require it to be history? Do you think Paul did not notice that in Gen. 1:26-27 Adam was not formed first?

 

[gluadys]

I guess, those that are theistic evolutionists(and believe in no Adam), read all the verses that refer to Adam or Eve as allegorical. They don't believe Adam existed, it doesn't fit with evolution. It sure makes it look like the teaching of evolution is more important then the scriptures.

Actually many TEs do believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I have no problem with that as a possibility. But you can't tell whether or not it is true from Genesis 2. The story could be interpreted either way---as referring to real individuals (though in a mythical setting) or as referring to representative allegories of human beings in general.

 

[gluadys]

Precisely. Couldn't agree more. You seem to have a problem accepting and believing something a five year old comprehends. That is your problem.

Your reasons given for why God did certain things are the only problem with your story. Your intent here is to belittle the plain teaching of Scripture, and in doing so you go beyond what the text says, and belittle God. That is a serious error.

I have only stated what the story states. If that is belittling God take it up with the inspired writer.

 

[gluadys]

But you cant agree with one creation story at parts where you want to and not other parts. Also the theory that makes most sense to me regarding interpreting the two creation stories is simple. The first is an overview and then the second goes into detail about the important stuff....man...the who point of God's creation. It is just like putting a magnifying glass over a certain part of the overview and bringing it alive.

Actually, it is the other way around. The story in Genesis 2 was written earlier and focuses principally on the creation of man and woman. Genesis 1 was written later, describes the whole panorama of the creation of heaven and earth, and summarizes the creation of humanity (since the detail was already available in what is now Genesis 2).

The editor who compiled the Torah selected the later writing as a more appropriate beginning to the whole collection of writings.

 

[gluadys]

But as science updates, you need to teach them new stuff.

No, not at all. AS I said they have not developed an interest in science---at least not in biological science. So it is pointless to ask them to keep updated on it. I don't even keep well updated myself, since it is not my professional field either.

It is not the specifics of any particular datum of science that is relevant here, but the principle that God speaks to people in terms they understand. So when God revealed himself to Abraham or Moses or Isaiah or Paul, he spoke in the terminology of the time.

We view the world differently because our scientific knowledge has grown and changed. But we do not need to view God differently, because God is eternal and changeless.

The only place the specifics of science become pertinent is when a scientifically uninformed person tries to use outdated or incorrect or misinterpreted information to discredit science, in the misguided belief that this glorifies God.

 

[gluadys]

Can you please re-write all this but insert the verses along side to see if it fits the story.

Sure.

You know, it fits a pattern. In this story, all of us were created because God needed a gardener.

He wanted to plant a garden, but he didn't have a gardener to till the ground. Gen. 2:5b

So he makes a man to tend the garden, and God plants the garden and God is happy. 2:15

But the man is not. The man is alone. God sees it is not good for the man to be alone. So to keep his gardener happy, God decides to create some companions for him. 2:18

So the animals are created.2:19

But none of them are satisfactory companions.2:20b

So woman is created.2:21-22

Now the gardener is happy, and so God is happy. 2:23

OK, it does not specifically say, God is happy.

Also, God had a plan before the foundations of this world and that plan was to show His love to a creature of free will, man. In all His glory and power, He was going to send His only begotten Son Jesus Christ to die for us.

But you only know that from reading all the bible and integrating it into a whole. That option was not available when this story was first being told around campfires possibly as early as the days of Jacob, or by village elders in Judea in the time of David. This is one of the earliest sections of the Bible to be put in writing. So when it was first circulated, people did not have the rest of the bible to integrate it with.

You have to put yourself in the position of a person who has this story and only this story to tell them about creation.

Then comes the fall of man, SIN!! This one thing COMPLETELY destroyed our union with God as Adam once knew it.

Yes, and that IS part of this original story which continues unbroken through chapter 4 (and is then interrupted by a geneology inserted by the final editor of the Torah) and then picks up again at various places through Genesis, Exodus and Numbers.

 

[gluadys]

Hmm..but I thought the story would encompass the full story...not just one verse. I think the meaning of being put in the garden here is much bigger than just be a gardener as we see it today. I understand children may not understand the bigger picture for a while..but you can pretty much preach the Gospel by explaining the creation story to someone and then take them to the NT and Romans. I am sure large numbers have come to Christ through this simple, yet beautiful picture that has been given to us.

I am sure of that too. But I have also seen plenty of evangelizing that does not touch on creation at all e.g the Four Spiritual Laws sort of thing. And in any case how God created is much less important than thatGod created and that God loves and cares for us and wants us to be in fellowship with God.

I have also seen more than enough evidence that people have been prevented from coming to Christ and/or have left the faith because of an insistence on one particular how of creation.

 

[herev]

Actually many TEs do believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

Here's one that does

 

[Andy D]

How does Paul's reference to a myth require it to be history? Do you think Paul did not notice that in Gen. 1:26-27 Adam was not formed first?

Considering that before Paul's conversion he was a pharisee of pharisees. He was a very learned man when it came to the Scriptures and knowing what they said, especially according to the Jewish customs, etc.

 

[Andy D]

Actually, it is the other way around. The story in Genesis 2 was written earlier and focuses principally on the creation of man and woman. Genesis 1 was written later, describes the whole panorama of the creation of heaven and earth, and summarizes the creation of humanity (since the detail was already available in what is now Genesis 2).

The editor who compiled the Torah selected the later writing as a more appropriate beginning to the whole collection of writings.

You misread me. I didnt say which way they were written. You took that I meant it that way but it doesnt make a difference to me. My argument had nothing to do with Gen 1 or 2 in which was one written first. It is that one is a detailed account of man and woman and God and the Gen 1 is an overview of the whole creation account. It doesnt go into detail about man. That needed a whole separate section. God isnt really bound by things such as the order of things written. He knew it all anyhow.

 

[gluadys]

Considering that before Paul's conversion he was a pharisee of pharisees. He was a very learned man when it came to the Scriptures and knowing what they said, especially according to the Jewish customs, etc.

Yes, that is my point.

 

[PotLuck]

Was away for a spell.
Where were we?

Getting back on track here so bear with me.

Adam is factual.
Paul knew there was a time that Adam was alone.
The two accounts of Genesis in harmony.
Adam formed from nonliving.
Eve created from living, Adam.

We know by Luke 3:23 that Adam was factual for if he wasn't then where would the myth end and the factual begin? Adam had children, the bible tells us that. Those children began the geneology of the "man" Jesus Himself.
Therefore Adam was real since we can trace Jesus back to Adam. Jesus wasn't born through a myth.
I know some posted that they believe Adam was indeed real so don't mind me. I'm just getting some thoughts focused.

Oh, by the way. I think it's pretty cool that a woman has one more set of ribs than a man does. I'm not insinuating anything by that, I just think it's pretty cool.


1 Tim 2:13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

How does Paul's reference to a myth require it to be history? Do you think Paul did not notice that in Gen. 1:26-27 Adam was not formed first?

Again the assumption is made that it is in fact a myth.. "Paul's reference to a myth".
"require" assumes something needs to be done, an action, supporting the first assumption.
Another assumption is that Paul was using the King James version of the Old Testament. (impossible)
Here's what I mean by that.

I might need some help here in understanding a hebrew word like wayuitser (root: yatsar)
Adam149 if you're around I could use some help I think You seem good at hebrew translation.

Anyway..
As far as I can gather that word could very well mean "had formed". It's still past tense but there's something about the Hebrew language that it may be taken as "formed" or "had formed".
At any rate the verse also reads as:
"And out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field...."
I also think Paul not only noticed it but knew it. So the two are in harmony.

So evolution agrees with Gen. 1:26-27 instead of with the second creation story. In Genesis 1 man and woman are created together in the SAME manner.

|v26 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.
|v27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
(OldT:Genesis 1:26-27)

Throughout the verses God mentions only man until the very end and even makes that point with "him", not her or both but says "created he him". Then He follows with "created he them". Notice the placement of "them", again an overview. God makes that distinction AFTER He created "him". I certainly see no contradiction between the two accounts of Genesis.

And again focus on the verse... "in the image of God created he him ; male and female created he them.
It reads, "in the image of God created he him"
semicolon *pause*
then continues, "male and female created he them."

Gen 1:18-23 fills in for the semicolon, the pause, in greater detail.
I think someone already pointed out that one account is an overview while the other fills in the details.

So evolution agrees with Gen. 1:26-27 instead of with the second creation story.

Take no offense here ok? I'm just very poor with words in sensitive areas. Please forgive me.
Here evolution is used first, the verse comes second. The motivation here is to fit the bible to evolution instead of looking to reconcile the two accounts of Genesis. The Word of God is "closed", a book unto it's own, requiring no outside input to support it. If there's a question concerning the bible then it's best to use the bible to answer the question or find the solution. For example, before I was saved I used to think "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" was a contradiction to "Turn the other cheek". That is until God opened my eyes and I could understand what I was reading and used the bible to reconcile what I thought was a contradiction.
And I'm STILL learning that lesson (using the bible to answer biblical questions). It's like a never-ending learning curve. The bible has SO much to offer, SO much within itself that I honestly believe it's depth will never be reached. There's always more, something missed, something unseen, something to learn.

AS a myth it indicates nothing at all about history. That is the point. A myth is not historical. The people are not historical. The events are not historical

There is a perfectly good literary reason for the man to be alone (see above), but that does not mean there ever was an historical man who was literally alone.

And there are good theological reasons for the man to be alone. That still does not mean there was an historical man who was literally alone.

"does not mean there was an historical man who was literally alone"

Seems that's the gist of the post.
It doesn't make sense that here's Adam, a real guy having children to begin the linage of Jesus and God would tell us things about him that aren't true. I can see Adam now, "Whatcha talkin' about God?"
Nah, J/K
Why would The Creator, who was also there, say Adam was alone if he wasn't? Myth or not the idea is still conveyed that Adam was alone. Adam was real so he was really alone.

1 Tim 2:13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Why do you think that may be important? I know I asked that before but still... does that event, Eve being created after Adam, have any significance? And what is the significance of Eve being created from Adam and not from the ground as Adam was?

There's something to be said for why Adam was created from the ground and not just POOF! ..."created". Each were created differently and for a reason.

 

[gluadys]

.

We know by Luke 3:23 that Adam was factual for if he wasn't then where would the myth end and the factual begin? Adam had children, the bible tells us that. Those children began the geneology of the "man" Jesus Himself.
Therefore Adam was real since we can trace Jesus back to Adam. Jesus wasn't born through a myth.

Well, this is more of a modern problem that it was for people in biblical times. Geneologies which combined mythical and historical elements were very much taken for granted in biblical times and were not considered problematical. We create the problem for ourselves because we think differently about the value of myth.

Oh, by the way. I think it's pretty cool that a woman has one more set of ribs than a man does. I'm not insinuating anything by that, I just think it's pretty cool.

This is not a fact, nor is it implied by the biblical story even if you take it literally. Eve's sons would inherit her genes for the usual number of ribs. And in any case, alterations to a person's body acquired in his/her lifetime are not inheritable. Adam's genes would still specify the full complement of ribs.

1 Tim 2:13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Again the assumption is made that it is in fact a myth.. "Paul's reference to a myth".
"require" assumes something needs to be done, an action, supporting the first assumption.

No, not assuming that it is in fact a myth. Just saying that if it is a myth, a Pauline reference to it does not create a requirement that it become history.

Another assumption is that Paul was using the King James version of the Old Testament. (impossible)
Here's what I mean by that.

I might need some help here in understanding a hebrew word like wayuitser (root: yatsar)
Adam149 if you're around I could use some help I think You seem good at hebrew translation.

Anyway..
As far as I can gather that word could very well mean "had formed". It's still past tense but there's something about the Hebrew language that it may be taken as "formed" or "had formed".
At any rate the verse also reads as:
"And out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field...."
I also think Paul not only noticed it but knew it. So the two are in harmony.

Verb tenses can be very tricky when it comes to translation. I understand Hebrew has no actual future tense, but that the present can (and sometimes must) be translated as future depending on the context. Perhaps the same applies to perfect tenses.

What this comes down to in many instances is that both a present/future or perfect/pluperfect translation is possible.

But what does this mean to the native speaker of the language? The native speaker hears/sees one tense, not two. And it means one thing, not two. And the one thing it means is neither of the translator's choices.

Take a simple example I am familiar with in translating from English to French. In English we use one verb "know" where French uses two. We say "I know Dorothy" and "I know Dorothy's address." A native speaker of English, who has never studied another language, will not think of "knowing" in these instances as two different processes.

But French (and many other languages) do. In French one will say "Je connais Dorothee" but "Je sais l'adresse de Dorothee." And one will never substitute "connais" for "sais". Because, to the native speaker of French, to know a datum is a very different process than to know a person. So when the person who speaks English starts to learn French, s/he has to begin to discriminate between different kinds of "knowing" when that was not necessary as long as s/he knew only English.

We make a distinction between perfect ("formed") and pluperfect ("had formed"). The native speaker of Hebrew did not have to make that distinction. So what did it mean to him?

|v26 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.
|v27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
(OldT:Genesis 1:26-27)

Throughout the verses God mentions only man until the very end and even makes that point with "him", not her or both but says "created he him". Then He follows with "created he them". Notice the placement of "them", again an overview. God makes that distinction AFTER He created "him". I certainly see no contradiction between the two accounts of Genesis.

Now it is you who are assuming the KJV. The Hebrew term "adam" as a common noun, does not refer exclusively to the male form of the human species. When it does, that has to be taken from the context. Its root meaning is generic: "human being" not "male human being".

And again focus on the verse... "in the image of God created he him ; male and female created he them.
It reads, "in the image of God created he him"
semicolon *pause*
then continues, "male and female created he them."

You seriously going to contend that women are not created in the image of God? Gen. 2 does not state that Eve was made a living soul by the breath of God as Adam was. Does that mean women do not have souls either?

Why would The Creator, who was also there, say Adam was alone if he wasn't? Myth or not the idea is still conveyed that Adam was alone. Adam was real so he was really alone.

1 Tim 2:13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Because the Creator didn't say it (the bible was not dictated). The writer of the story said it and the writer said it because it was necessary to the flow of the story. And Paul picks it up because he is basing a theological point on this part of the story.

 

[herev]

Oh, by the way. I think it's pretty cool that a woman has one more set of ribs than a man does. I'm not insinuating anything by that, I just think it's pretty cool.

speaking of myths
http://www.biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio105/ribs.htm

same number of ribs--that's one of those old wive's tales that came from a literal reading of the creation accounts
sorry

here's another, it only lists the number of ribs, no distinction between men and women
http://www.dharmayoga.org/onlinestudy/anatomy.htm#Bone%20List

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I wonder how many other untruths were told by the same person as told him that women have one more set of ribs than men?