Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It is not about refusing to get it, it is about the reality that many of us do not accept the premise you are proposing. It is not about suggesting that the Bible is wrong or deficient in some sense.
Textual and Literary analysis of the text leads one to conclude that there were two separate oral traditions that have been recorded, and they are not absolutely in synch.
There is no need to reconcile the two accounts since they are about two different creations. The Bible is not in error, it is our understanding of of events in the Bible that is flawed.
Its not about day six. Its about the unfolding of what God created and saw in Genesis One come into fruition in Genesis Two. Its not about day six. For the animals also became physically manifested after Adam was made manifest.Not so. Common teaching and reasoning is that Gen 1 is about the entire creation while Gen 2 is mostly about day 6. For some reason people like to find error with scripture where it isn't.
I doubt it. God had already made the animas...showed Adam. That chicken can't be your wife, neither can the cow or lion. God then made Adams wife from his rib.Its not about day six. Its about the unfolding of what God created and saw in Genesis One come into fruition in Genesis Two. Its not about day six. For the animals also became physically manifested after Adam was made manifest.
The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a
helper suitable for him.”
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." Gen 2:18-19
See that? Just like Adam's body. The Lord had molded and formed animal bodies.
Animal bodies for their souls God created "out from nothing" in Genesis One. The animals were brought to Adam to be named before Adam was to receive his woman.
The land and air animals and human life created in Genesis One were their souls (invisible). In Genesis Two they were given a physical presence to have in this created physical world.
God saw all the vegetation in Genesis One. But, in Genesis Two we first see them sprouting.
Remember.. Genesis One? It says ..."God saw." In Genesis Two? We now can see what God saw in Genesis One. Just like God saw the lamb slain before the foundations of the earth! God saw it was done in eternity past! We did not get to see it done until God appeared in the flesh to make himself become as a man.
God will see something and tell us its there. You will be wondering what he was talking about until God makes it manifested. God saw it as already being reality before we could perceive it. Because God can not fail.
God is omniscient. He says you are now seated in Heaven in Christ.
You are. But, are you seeing it? Ephesians 2:6
God's nature is revealed in the Scriptures.
You have a perception problem... And, appear to use it as a tool to obfuscate and confuse the dialogue. I am not even going to try to straighten out that mess you just plopped on my plate.I doubt it. God had already made the animas...showed Adam. That chicken can't be your wife, neither can the cow or lion. God then made Adams wife from his rib.
If you are going to use Biblical Criticism in this way, and I don't mind that you do, there there is a wider spread for the method in considering Genesis 1 and 2, specifically in terms of the name of God. You seem to be suggesting that God created Souls in Genesis 1 and Physical being in Genesis 2, which would be a very Greek thought from a thousand years later, and quite counter Hebrew thought where soul and body had a much greater synthesis.The souls were created out from nothing in Genesis One. (bara)
Bodies for those souls were molded (jatsar) and provided for in Genesis Two.
If you are going to use Biblical Criticism in this way, and I don't mind that you do, there there is a wider spread for the method in considering Genesis 1 and 2, specifically in terms of the name of God. You seem to be suggesting that God created Souls in Genesis 1 and Physical being in Genesis 2, which would be a very Greek thought from a thousand years later, and quite counter Hebrew thought where soul and body had a much greater synthesis.
A much more viable understanding is to accept that there are two seperate oral traditions that have been recorded sequentially rather than synthesised.
If you are going to use Biblical Criticism in this way, and I don't mind that you do, there there is a wider spread for the method in considering Genesis 1 and 2, specifically in terms of the name of God.
If you are going to use Biblical Criticism in this way, and I don't mind that you do, there there is a wider spread for the method in considering Genesis 1 and 2, specifically in terms of the name of God. You seem to be suggesting that God created Souls in Genesis 1 and Physical being in Genesis 2, which would be a very Greek thought from a thousand years later, and quite counter Hebrew thought where soul and body had a much greater synthesis.
A much more viable understanding is to accept that there are two seperate oral traditions that have been recorded sequentially rather than synthesised.
In the first creation story, Genesis 1, plants are created on the third day.
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
Genesis 1:11-13 NIV
Still in the first creation story, God creates fish, sea creatures and birds on the fifth day.
20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
Genesis 1: 20-23 NIV
Then God creates land animals and an undetermined number of people on the sixth day.
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.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
Genesis 1: 24-28 NIV
The second creation account starts in Genesis 2:4.
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.
Genesis 2:4 NIV
We are specifically told that there is "no shrub" and "no plant" when Adam, the first man, is created.
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 2:5-7 NIV
The second creation story gives the impression that plants are made to make Adam comfortable. The tenses here are confusing and I'll say more about that later.
8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Genesis 2:8-9 NIV
In the first creation story, birds (and fish) are created before land animals while in the second creation story, land animals and birds are created at the same time. In the first story, plants and animals are created before people while in the second, Adam is created before plants and animals. Again, the creation of animals is related to Adam's comfort, since the text distinguishes between "livestock" and "wild animals." The creation of land animals and birds is closely connected with their presentation to Adam.
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.
Genesis 2:19-20 NIV
God announces the intention to create Eve, to create the first woman, in verse 18. He does not actually do so until verses 21-23, after the creation and presentation of birds, livestock and wild animals.
18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
...
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.
23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
Genesis 2:18-25 NIV
In summary, in the first creation story, God creates plants, then animals, then people. In the second creation story, God first creates the man, Adam, then plants, then animals, and then the woman, Eve. Each of these stories has its purpose but as literal story they can't be reconciled.
I disagree completely. Read the first 3 verses of Genesis 2 - it says God rested on the seventh day, and that all of creation was finished.
So by the first part of Genesis 2, everything had been created.
The first account is more detailed, and the second account is a review of creation, and is more generalized.
You are not following what has been said?
"Bara" means to create something 'out from nothing.' God was creating things out from nothing in Genesis One. When it says God rested? It was from "bara." Creating out from nothing ceased. What we find in Chapter Two is a lot of 'creativity.' But, no more "bara."
Adam's body was not created [bara] out from nothing. Instead? The Lord took soil, and from the elements of that soil, "molded and formed" the body. The Hebrew word in this case was "jatsar." Its what a creative sculpture may perform with clay. But, nothing in Genesis Two was created [bara] out from nothing.
By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so
on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the
seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the
work of creating [bara] that he had done."
God did no more "bara" in Genesis Two. That passage tells us that.
The following is where God did perform "bara" ....
In the beginning God created [bara] the heavens and the earth."
So God created [bara] mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created [bara] them;
male and female he created [bara] them."
To the Hebrew mind Hebrew draws a distinction in what took place! Its with the English translations that leaves room to not to sense what was going on in detail ..
grace and peace!
You are not following what has been said?
"Bara" means to create something 'out from nothing.' God was creating things out from nothing in Genesis One. When it says God rested? It was from "bara." Creating out from nothing ceased. What we find in Chapter Two is a lot of 'creativity.' But, no more "bara."
Adam's body was not created [bara] out from nothing. Instead? The Lord took soil, and from the elements of that soil, "molded and formed" the body. The Hebrew word in this case was "jatsar." Its what a creative sculpture may perform with clay. But, nothing in Genesis Two was created [bara] out from nothing.
By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so
on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the
seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the
work of creating [bara] that he had done."
God did no more "bara" in Genesis Two. That passage tells us that.
The following is where God did perform "bara" ....
In the beginning God created [bara] the heavens and the earth."
So God created [bara] mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created [bara] them;
male and female he created [bara] them."
To the Hebrew mind Hebrew draws a distinction in what took place! Its with the English translations that leaves room to not to sense what was going on in detail ..
grace and peace!
You are not following what has been said?
"Bara" means to create something 'out from nothing.' God was creating things out from nothing in Genesis One. When it says God rested? It was from "bara." Creating out from nothing ceased. What we find in Chapter Two is a lot of 'creativity.' But, no more "bara."
Adam's body was not created [bara] out from nothing. Instead? The Lord took soil, and from the elements of that soil, "molded and formed" the body. The Hebrew word in this case was "jatsar." Its what a creative sculpture may perform with clay. But, nothing in Genesis Two was created [bara] out from nothing.
By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so
on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the
seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the
work of creating [bara] that he had done."
God did no more "bara" in Genesis Two. That passage tells us that.
The following is where God did perform "bara" ....
In the beginning God created [bara] the heavens and the earth."
So God created [bara] mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created [bara] them;
male and female he created [bara] them."
To the Hebrew mind Hebrew draws a distinction in what took place! Its with the English translations that leaves room to not to sense what was going on in detail ..
grace and peace!
You are not following what has been said?
"Bara" means to create something 'out from nothing.' God was creating things out from nothing in Genesis One. When it says God rested? It was from "bara." Creating out from nothing ceased. What we find in Chapter Two is a lot of 'creativity.' But, no more "bara."
Adam's body was not created [bara] out from nothing. Instead? The Lord took soil, and from the elements of that soil, "molded and formed" the body. The Hebrew word in this case was "jatsar." Its what a creative sculpture may perform with clay. But, nothing in Genesis Two was created [bara] out from nothing.
By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so
on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the
seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the
work of creating [bara] that he had done."
God did no more "bara" in Genesis Two. That passage tells us that.
The following is where God did perform "bara" ....
In the beginning God created [bara] the heavens and the earth."
So God created [bara] mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created [bara] them;
male and female he created [bara] them."
To the Hebrew mind Hebrew draws a distinction in what took place! Its with the English translations that leaves room to not to sense what was going on in detail ..
grace and peace!
Thanks. I can look up the Hebrew too, such as Genesis 2:4, to whit:
Gen 2:4 These are the GENERATIONS of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
The word GENERATIONS means HISTORY in the Hebrew.
From H8435:
תֹּלְדָה תּוֹלְדָה
tôledâh tôledâh
to-led-aw', to-led-aw'
From H3205; (plural only) descent, that is, family; (figuratively) HISTORY - birth, generations.
Total KJV occurrences: 39
Genesis 2 is the history, a review of creation, and not a second creation account at all.
And it says it’s a history of when they WERE, past tense, created.
Thus that scripture means:
Gen 2:4 These H428 are the HISTORY H8435 of the heavens H8064 and of the earth H776 when they WERE CREATED, H1254 in the day H3117 that the LORD H3068 God H430 made H6213 the earth H776 and the heavens, H8064
Shalom.
Disagree. Genesis 1 and 2 are not two different creation accounts but are an explanation of the same creation account. Genesis 1 is talking broadly about what God did from day one to day six, and Gen. 2 talks only about day six about an enclosed area called Eden, and what happened within it.
Gen. 1 as people would have gathered is a general explanation about the creation account of the heaven and the earth, and the creation of all the plants and animals on the earth. You will also notice that the word 'earth' is used frequently. (Genesis 1:11-12) "The vegetation and plants of the earth." "The animals and the beasts of the earth." (Genesis 1:24-25)
Genesis two, on the other hand, is no longer describing what takes place on the earth, rather it is being more specific as "in the field". This may seem like a minor alteration of word usage in the English language, but to a keen eye, it is highly relevant.
The context in chapter 2:5, these "plants of the field" are described as "cultivated plants." Chapter 1 certainly mentioned vegetations and fruits, yet the difference with Gen. 2 is that verse 5 is quite clear that these plants of the field need a man to cultivate them, hence, the plants of the field are cultivated plants. Furthermore, 'of the field' can be translated as "cultivated field," and it only stands to reason that gardens contain plants that require cultivation. Verse 8 pretty much verifies that 'plants of the field' is referring to a garden and is cultivated by Adam later in verse 15.
To further reiterate, the field is in a specific location God named Eden; and in Eden God placed a garden there. Now "garden" in Hebrew can also mean an enclosure or an enclosed field; this changed the context to be speaking about specific types of animals, and specific types of birds, and specific types of plants of the field/garden. For example "birds of enclosure" would come to mean "domesticated fowls." It could also be open to animals that are not particularly domesticated but are reliant on the enclosure, like ecosystem gardening and agriculture we see today.
The key point is, Genesis chapter 1 is generally about the creation order from day one to day six, and Gen. chapter 2 is talking specifically about the account on day six. It may certainly appear like two different creation accounts, but once you have a fair understanding of the Hebrew texts and its meanings, it becomes much more profound with a wealth of detail.
There are two different creation accounts, you're right. That's why Cain was able to go east of Eden to the land of Nod and found a wife. Although many will tell you he married a sister even though that's not biblical.
Adam and Eve is the line that Christ would come through that's why she specifically is called the mother of all "living." Because without Christ there is no eternal life.
Traditions of men make void the word of God for sure.
Obviously, God only created the world once but more than one creation story has come down to us. Just look at the opening to the second creation story in Genesis 2:4.
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.
Genesis 2:4 NIV
This is definitely an introduction to a second story. It is at this point that the name of God changes from "Elohim" to "Jehovah-Elohim."
I'm sure your more of a Bible scholar than I am. But looking at Strong's I fail to see how you get the Trinity from 'elohiym
Strong’s Definitions H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:—angels, × exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), × (very) great, judges, × mighty.
Seeing that the Trinity was a creation of the Catholic Church and not being Catholic, I don't believe in the Trinity.
"The doctrine (the Trinity) was then finally made official at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, under the Roman Emperor Theodosius 1."
But you still haven't explained why this seems to be the only place in the Bible where elohiym is used in the plural. Seeing how God is eternal and never changing, and if you are correct about the Trinity, then elohiym should always be plural, but it isn't.
Off topic, since all our foods come from the soil what other nutrition would we have and where would they come from?
As Jesus is fully man and God in union....
The Holy Spirit is fully angel and God in union.
The Angel of Jehovah (who only appeared before the Incarnation, and then no more) was the Holy Spirit manifested bodily as God's Angel/Spirit. As seen with the burning bush and Moses... manifested as God.
Now, Jesus can not have been the Angel of Jehovah. For angels are not souls. They are spirits.Jesus is fully man (soul) and God!
As Jesus is revealing the Father to us? Before Jesus came to earth? the Angel of Jehovah was revealing the Father to the angels. Even before man existed.
We keep forgetting the importance of the angels to God. They were the FIRST Sons of God.
Angels have spirit. Men have soul. Not the same essence. Yet, both created in God's image.
grace and peace
Disagree. Genesis 1 and 2 are not two different creation accounts but are an explanation of the same creation account. Genesis 1 is talking broadly about what God did from day one to day six, and Gen. 2 talks only about day six about an enclosed area called Eden, and what happened within it.
Gen. 1 as people would have gathered is a general explanation about the creation account of the heaven and the earth, and the creation of all the plants and animals on the earth. You will also notice that the word 'earth' is used frequently. (Genesis 1:11-12) "The vegetation and plants of the earth." "The animals and the beasts of the earth." (Genesis 1:24-25)
Genesis two, on the other hand, is no longer describing what takes place on the earth, rather it is being more specific as "in the field". This may seem like a minor alteration of word usage in the English language, but to a keen eye, it is highly relevant.
The context in chapter 2:5, these "plants of the field" are described as "cultivated plants." Chapter 1 certainly mentioned vegetations and fruits, yet the difference with Gen. 2 is that verse 5 is quite clear that these plants of the field need a man to cultivate them, hence, the plants of the field are cultivated plants. Furthermore, 'of the field' can be translated as "cultivated field," and it only stands to reason that gardens contain plants that require cultivation. Verse 8 pretty much verifies that 'plants of the field' is referring to a garden and is cultivated by Adam later in verse 15.
To further reiterate, the field is in a specific location God named Eden; and in Eden God placed a garden there. Now "garden" in Hebrew can also mean an enclosure or an enclosed field; this changed the context to be speaking about specific types of animals, and specific types of birds, and specific types of plants of the field/garden. For example "birds of enclosure" would come to mean "domesticated fowls." It could also be open to animals that are not particularly domesticated but are reliant on the enclosure, like ecosystem gardening and agriculture we see today.
The key point is, Genesis chapter 1 is generally about the creation order from day one to day six, and Gen. chapter 2 is talking specifically about the account on day six. It may certainly appear like two different creation accounts, but once you have a fair understanding of the Hebrew texts and its meanings, it becomes much more profound with a wealth of detail.
Okay if you really want to get into this again, I shall.
Now one problem is the document that I kept all my notes on got corrupted so I don't have any notes to hand anymore.lesson learned was don't trust cloud storage.
On day three God created all the plants.
Genesis 1
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
This was outside of the garden because the garden had not been made yet.
In Genesis 2 the focus is on the garden of Eden.
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.
No day is given because God already told us that he created plants on day 3. This could be from the perspective of the author looking out onto the world early on day three directly before God created the plants or it could be looking at the garden of Eden. It doesn't say what day God planted this garden, it could have been day 3 or it may have been later. Some of the words in Hebrew though seem to indicate it's actually talking about cultivated plants and crops and is better translated as
5 Now no cultivated plant had yet appeared on the earth and no cultivated crop had yet sprung up.
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. 8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
God had planted the garden, meaning it had already been done before he created man. There is no conflict here and no day mentioned because its a recap of what God had done. The garden is separate to the rest of the creation. God could have taken plants that he created on day 3 and moved them to the garden or he created cultivated plants later especially for the garden. It doesn't really matter. The important part was that the garden was planted separately from the rest of the world and that it was made especially for man.
What you call a second creation is just focus on the garden of Eden vs the world.
For there to be two creations raises all kind of issues.
Where is the scripture that indicate there are two creations?
What point would a first and second creation serve?
God doesn't need a practice run, he doesn't make mistakes.
There is one other possibility: Eden was never a physical place. The Garden of Eden story is a parable, a teaching story..
And more off topic subject.
You must read a different Bible than I do. "Men have soul." They do?
Genesis 2:7 NIV Then the Lord God formed a man[a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Man is a living soul, he does not have one. Next you'll be tell me that this supposed soul that we have is an immortal one..
Even the Sumerians, who shared the basic underlying template of the story, presented Eden as a physical place. Except in their case, the Sumerian "gods" built this home for themselves. It was a pleasure garden for their own enjoyment. They only created humans to be the mindless slaves to clean up the place (that is, until the reptilian god Enki freed the humans, gave them "knowledge", and the humans ended up rebelling). But it is worth mentioning anyhow. Despite all of the drastic reversals in some of the roles (especially where Sumerians make the Serpent the good guy *a red flag if I ever saw one*), they shared the fact that Eden was a physical place.
Even Adam's own name - or "adamah" - means soil or earth. You can't get more down and dirty than that. Why would the core of the story have a portrayal so humbling and physical, when, according to your
On a major sidenote: Hebrew itself is kind of a down to earth language. A lot of roots in their words are built up of simple physical objects. The linguistics behind their thinking doesn't give me the impression of people who are prone to too many abstractions. For example, the first Hebrew letter (in Paleo script) - the Aleph (the A) was originally in the shape of a "Bull" head. Because it represented Strength. The Alpha. The First. The "B" (Bet) is in the shape of a tent or house. Then when you put these two together - the A and B, you get "Ab". Father (or Abba). But the very letters give off a down to earth meaning of "Father" itself: the Bull and the Tent placed together. The Head of the House. Hebrew consists of a lot of everyday building blocks strung together.
The idea of Jews over-spiritualizing things didn't come until thousands of years later with the Gnostics (with Jews it was with the Kabbalah teachings, which heavily borrowed from Gnosticism). A lot about the earlier culture and religion used very elemental and physical language and believed in down to earth promises ("a land of milk and honey"). They didn't even fully grasp promises of the afterlife.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?