Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[BCP1928]

It's important to remember that chapter and verse divisions were not originally in the bible, but were added much later as an aid to referencing particular parts of the bible. So there was no "Chapter 1" and "Chapter 2" when Genesis was first written. I think chapter divisions were added in the early 13th century A.D., and verses in the 16th century. As for your question about one account, why should it not be, as the post to which you were replying said, that what we now call Genesis 2 deals in more detail with what has already been recorded in the previous chapter, rather than a separate account?

Because, chapter headings aside, it is widely believe by Hebrew scholars that the stories are very different in style and genre and very likely derive from different sources. Some of those differences are apparent even in English translation. If you want to read the two stories as a continuous narrative, AV provided us with a very nice Harmony a few posts back. But it is notable that the original redactors decided not to do that.

 

[AV1611VET]

And, while I'm at it, may I ask you to please refrain from making up your own words. Thank you!

May I do it to someone else?

And for the record, didn't the Kennedy twins engage in idioglossia and neologisms?

 

[AV1611VET]

Aaron, you need to snuffle-obfuscus while you sneedle glower in the mouer.

Hey, c'mon!

At least I used a proper suffix.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

May I do it to someone else?

And for the record, didn't the Kennedy twins engage in idioglossia and neologisms?

As strange as it may seem to you, I don't really care if some "Kennedy twins" indulged in idioglossia and neologisms.

I leave it to you, within the bounds of informal logic, to figure out why I don't care.

 

[AveChristusRex]

Genesis 2 is a separate account. For example, in Genesis 1, Adam and Eve are created on day 6 after animals. Whereas in Genesis 2, Adam comes first, Adam names all the animals, he is lonely and could not find a helper, then Eve is created after the animals were named.

The orders of creation are different.

What some might say: "well, day 6 is talking about the human soul, not their physical bodies".

Um, no. Genesis 1 uses the same Hebrew terms for creation throughout the chapter. Unless you think that when God made the animals and the stars in Genesis 1, that it was also just talking about spirits and souls, and isn't about physical bodies, this response is illogical.

I don't personally know how you would define 'account,' but Genesis 2 is not a chronological recounting like Genesis 1 but a thematic and relational expansion of Day 6 in Genesis 1. The Hebrew verb tense in Genesis 2 allows retrospective or thematic descriptions rather than sequential events. For instance, Genesis 2:19 ("Now the LORD God had formed...") suggests that the animals were already created before Adam. The key is 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..." The phrase "had formed" in many translations reflects the Hebrew verb yatsar, which can be rendered in the pluperfect tense ("had formed") rather than the simple past.

As mentioned, Genesis 1 is presented to the reader as a chronological account of the creation of the universe (with a heavy focus on man and man's perspective.) Genesis 2 is presented to the reader as an account of the creation of Adam and Eve and the original Garden Paradise. Genesis 3 is presented to the reader as a per se "compilation" of everything good that God made:

• The main focus of Genesis 2 is the creation of Adam and Eve. This took place during "Day 6" of the Genesis 1 account.
• The purpose of Genesis 2 is to prepare the reader to understand Genesis 3, not to provide stale historical records for future generations to fill their heads with. Everything mentioned in Genesis 2 is strategic, with an eye toward Genesis 3 and beyond.
• The audience of Genesis 1-3 lived after the Fall and did not experience life during the Creation Week, or life in the Garden paradise.

We can attempt an initial chronology based on these two accounts:

• God made light, heaven, and dry land
• God made seed-bearing and fruit-bearing vegetation for food
• God made fish, birds, and land animals
• God made Adam
• God made the Garden of Eden and placed Adam there
• God had Adam name the animals, and then He made Eve

So, the two chronologies mesh perfectly. Dr. Richard Averbeck makes this point too: “We have this whole universe in Genesis 1:1 through 2:3. And then Genesis 2:4 goes on and really zeros down into (God’s) work of humanity.” From what I can tell, I think you are imposing modern expectations of linear storytelling onto ancient textual style.

 

[AV1611VET]

As strange as it may seem to you, I don't really care if some "Kennedy twins" indulged in idioglossia and neologisms.

Frankly, I don't either.

I leave it to you, within the bounds of informal logic, to figure out why I don't care.

Because you're not a lexicographer?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Frankly, I don't either.



Because you're not a lexicographer?

It doesn't take a lexicographer to figure out the fallacy you've committed.

 

[AV1611VET]

It doesn't take a lexicographer to figure out the fallacy you've committed.

Let's quit horsing around.

If you have a better word than "interpretee," would you care to share it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Let's quit horsing around.

If you have a better word than "interpretee," would you care to share it?

Sure, I can, if you'll explain how your manufactured term, "interpretee," has a place in modern Communication Theory and Hermeneutics.

... and don't think I don't see your gist already: We all know that the Lord is the arbiter of the meaning He wants us to have. The disagreement you and I have comes in specifying where and to what extent we each think God has surmounted verses like Deuteronomy 29:29 through the First Advent of Christ and the Illumination of the Holy Spirit.

Obviously, our common epistemic ground would be that when we are attempting to interpret 2 Peter 1:20, neither you nor I will give higher ground to those Christians who claim to be in the so-called 'Charismatic Movement.' And neither would St. Paul.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure, I can, if you'll explain how your manufactured term, "interpretee," has a place in modern Communication Theory and Hermeneutics.

Why are you turning this into a quid pro quo?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why are you turning this into a quid pro quo?

Paul and Peter would. We all want truth, not people's guesswork.

 

[truthpls]

Genesis 2 is a separate account. For example, in Genesis 1, Adam and Eve are created on day 6 after animals. Whereas in Genesis 2, Adam comes first, Adam names all the animals, he is lonely and could not find a helper, then Eve is created after the animals were named.

The orders of creation are different.

In Genesis 2 it adds the detail that there was no rain, but a mist from below. That is not another creation order, obviously the land and waters were already divided to allow a mist to rise and water plants.


Genesis 2:6
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Eden was here when God made Adam, because He took the man TO the garden prepared for us.


Genesis 2:7
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

So we know plants were here when verse 7 happened. It is not some other order.


Genesis 2:9
And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

So we already have man created, and know the plants were created days before. One of the plants was the tree of life and was there for man in advance.

Yes Adam was created first. In Gen chapter one it just says God created mankind, male and female. In chapter 2 we get more details about what had already happened on day one. So when we see the woman came from the man, that does not mean some other day. We also know the animals were created the same day, and that they were here before the woman as well. God brought the animals to Adam to name. Then we are told how God made a woman from the man after that. It even gives one reason being that no animal was a real companion for the man.

Trying to insert some alternate creation order is insulting to the text and spirit of the text.

 

[Kylie]

Why are you here if your mind is closed and you think that the creation of God has to be explained only by the natural? Have you some proof it was natural?

If you'd understood what I've been saying, you'd see that I am not closed-minded. I'll accept ANYTHING as true, provided it has testable evidence to support it.

But once again you respond with the same PRATT (point refuted a thousand times) as before.

There is no discussion with you.

 

[truthpls]

If you'd understood what I've been saying, you'd see that I am not closed-minded. I'll accept ANYTHING as true, provided it has testable evidence to support it.

But once again you respond with the same PRATT (point refuted a thousand times) as before.

There is no discussion with you.

Only if you admit the science deals only with the natural. If you don't you obviously stand in a place where most people would know you were wrong. If you admit it you lose any debate involving creation. Why would you think I thought you would last more than a few rounds?

 

[BCP1928]

Only if you admit the science deals only with the natural. If you don't you obviously stand in a place where most people would know you were wrong. If you admit it you lose any debate involving creation. Why would you think I thought you would last more than a few rounds?

With you it's just the same round over and over. No one has to "admit" that science only deals with the natural. It's implicit in the scientific method.

 

[truthpls]

With you it's just the same round over and over. No one has to "admit" that science only deals with the natural. It's implicit in the scientific method.

As you just admitted. So pray tell why would you ask such a natural only outfit to study the superdupernatural?

 

[BCP1928]

As you just admitted. So pray tell why would you ask such a natural only outfit to study the superdupernatural?

I'm not the one asking the question.

 

[truthpls]

I'm not the one asking the question.

OK, so I guess we can wait for the threadmeister to respond

 

[Kylie]

Only if you admit the science deals only with the natural.

I won't admit it, because it's not true.

I have told you countless times:

SCIENCE DEALS WITH WHAT CAN BE TESTED. IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE NATURAL.

The fact that you refuse to accept this proves beyond any doubt that you are not here for a discussion, you are here to push your beliefs onto others.

 

[truthpls]

I won't admit it, because it's not true.

wow OK so list the things science is all about and studies OTHER than the natural!?

I have told you countless times:

SCIENCE DEALS WITH WHAT CAN BE TESTED. IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE NATURAL.

That is nonsensical. What else can be tested by science that is NOT natural?

The fact that you refuse to accept this proves beyond any doubt that you are not here for a discussion, you are here to push your beliefs onto others.

As soon as you offer support for the claim that science is not limited to the natural, we can look at that. Until we see evidence for that claim it remains your belief and obviously you are trying to push it.