PDA

View Full Version : Confusion early on in Genesis



Michael1325
Mar 21st 2012, 04:33 AM
Confusion starts almost immediately with the Bible in the first chapter of Genesis. This confusion is regarding man and woman, specifically woman.

The first mention of man is in Genesis 1:26 - 'And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...' Now, in Genesis 1:27 it says, '...male AND FEMALE he created them.' In Genesis 1:31, God saw every thing he had made and it was very good. Then it says, the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Genesis 2:1 begins by saying that the heavens and the earth were finished. Genesis 2:2 and so on begins talking about the seventh day, how it was made holy, etc.

Genesis 2:8 says, 'and there he put the man he had formed,' meaning Adam in Eden. There is no mention of Eve, of Woman, who should have already been created by the words of Genesis 1:27. In fact, woman's creation is in Genesis 2:22, after the sixth day in which female should have been created, and after man, Adam, was placed in Eden and in need of a helpmate.

Eve is supposed to be the first woman, and woman was supposedly created on the sixth day, yet Eve actually shows up after the sixth and seventh day, after Adam had been put into the garden of Eden, in which God planted.

How does this make any sense at all?

markedward
Mar 21st 2012, 04:35 AM
The two accounts aren't meant to be read chronologically. They're looking at the same act of creation from entirely different perspectives.

Michael1325
Mar 21st 2012, 04:50 AM
The two accounts aren't meant to be read chronologically. They're looking at the same act of creation from entirely different perspectives.

Also, Adam and Eve being the first man and woman had relations and created Cain and Abel. After Cain kills Abel and God punishes Cain, Cain states his fear of being killed by anyone who finds him. God said anyone that kills him will be punished sevenfold. If Adam and Eve were first, and they created Cain and Abel, where did these people Cain fears come from? Soon after, Cain's wife is mentioned. Where did she come from?

I assume that the answer is that Adam and Eve with the FIRST, not the ONLY? Correct? But why isn't there a mention of this?

RockSolid
Mar 21st 2012, 03:42 PM
Also, Adam and Eve being the first man and woman had relations and created Cain and Abel. After Cain kills Abel and God punishes Cain, Cain states his fear of being killed by anyone who finds him. God said anyone that kills him will be punished sevenfold. If Adam and Eve were first, and they created Cain and Abel, where did these people Cain fears come from? Soon after, Cain's wife is mentioned. Where did she come from?

It was traditionally believed that Adam had 33 sons and 23 daughters.

Josephus says (parenthesis mine) , "He (Adam) had indeed many other children, but Seth in particular. As for the rest, it would be tedious to name them"- Antiquities 1.2:3

divaD
Mar 21st 2012, 04:33 PM
Confusion starts almost immediately with the Bible in the first chapter of Genesis. This confusion is regarding man and woman, specifically woman.

The first mention of man is in Genesis 1:26 - 'And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...' Now, in Genesis 1:27 it says, '...male AND FEMALE he created them.' In Genesis 1:31, God saw every thing he had made and it was very good. Then it says, the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Genesis 2:1 begins by saying that the heavens and the earth were finished. Genesis 2:2 and so on begins talking about the seventh day, how it was made holy, etc.

Genesis 2:8 says, 'and there he put the man he had formed,' meaning Adam in Eden. There is no mention of Eve, of Woman, who should have already been created by the words of Genesis 1:27. In fact, woman's creation is in Genesis 2:22, after the sixth day in which female should have been created, and after man, Adam, was placed in Eden and in need of a helpmate.

Eve is supposed to be the first woman, and woman was supposedly created on the sixth day, yet Eve actually shows up after the sixth and seventh day, after Adam had been put into the garden of Eden, in which God planted.

How does this make any sense at all?



I would think the following is proof that the 2 Genesis accounts are the same events, but from different perspectives.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Would it be safe to conclude that a female and a woman is the very same thing?
I would think so.

Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

If this somehow happens after God allegedly creates different females in Genesis 1, then what would they have been called? This passage tells us there was no such thing as a woman, in which a woman would be a female, right? Not until the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And then we see Adam saying, she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

All of that clearly contradicts Genesis 1 if God created any females prior to Eve in chapter 2. The only way to logically square this, both accounts are the same events, but from different perspectives.


I would think this should answer your 2nd post as well. Since God didn't create nor form anyone other than Adam and Eve, then obviously Cain's wife had to be a sister, a niece, etc. You also have to allow for the fact that are gaps of time in the Genesis 4 account. We have no clue how old Cain was when he slew Abel, nor how many children Adam and Eve has brought into the world at the point. It's totally possible that Adam and Eve were already working on a family while in the garden, since God told them to be fruitful and multiply. And this would be before they even fell. At this point, the Bible is mainly focusing on the line that leads to Christ, the reason Seth is mentioned soon after.

jayne
Mar 21st 2012, 05:00 PM
Markedward and divaD are right about the two accounts not to be read chronologically.

What you are reading here and what is found in other places in the Bible, as well as film and literature, is a flashback.

Someone gives an account of something and the telling of that account with the facts included have a specific purpose. Then one goes back and fills in some detail that has a totally different purpose. It happens all the time in something as simple as conversation, speech giving, and letter writing.

Flashbacks have a purpose. In my opinion and this is just my two cents, the purpose of the flashback in chapter two is this.

Chapter one gives an account of God creating everything. Not a lot of detail is given, but enough is given to understand that God is soverign and nothing was made that He did not make – including man and woman on the sixth day. Also, chapter 1 has a purpose of letting the reader know that everything that God made was very good. Chapter one has a rhythm and cadence to it - almost like song with each "stanza" giving an acount of what was created and giving the credit to God. It's about ALL of His creation and the Godly order to it.

Chapter two has a uniquely different purpose. Chapter two flashes back to the sixth day lets the reader know that there is a difference between humanity and animals and a difference between a man and a woman. Beginning with their creation – their order – their design. God calls both humans “good”. All things about them – including the things that make them different from each other are good. Chapter two is a peek into the relationship between the two – the joy that Adam felt when God presented Eve to him – and the powerful relationship Eve has with Adam – the “help that is meet” – the “ezer kenegdo” that she is to him.

You will find another flashback in Genesis. Chapters 10 and 11 are completely in reverse chronologically. Chapter 10 gives a genealogical accounting of Noah’s descendants, their possessing unique political groups, languages, and geographical regions. Chapter 11 gives the account of the Tower of Babel and tells the reader HOW those differing political groups, languages, and geographic regions came to be.

The entire Bible in not in chronological order, but in order by genre of the books. And flashbacks with an account are quite common and help to reveal more detail about a previous account with interrupting the purpose of the previous account.

rejoice44
Mar 21st 2012, 05:08 PM
Confusion starts almost immediately with the Bible in the first chapter of Genesis. This confusion is regarding man and woman, specifically woman.

The first mention of man is in Genesis 1:26 - 'And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...' Now, in Genesis 1:27 it says, '...male AND FEMALE he created them.' In Genesis 1:31, God saw every thing he had made and it was very good. Then it says, the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Genesis 2:1 begins by saying that the heavens and the earth were finished. Genesis 2:2 and so on begins talking about the seventh day, how it was made holy, etc.

Genesis 2:8 says, 'and there he put the man he had formed,' meaning Adam in Eden. There is no mention of Eve, of Woman, who should have already been created by the words of Genesis 1:27. In fact, woman's creation is in Genesis 2:22, after the sixth day in which female should have been created, and after man, Adam, was placed in Eden and in need of a helpmate.

Eve is supposed to be the first woman, and woman was supposedly created on the sixth day, yet Eve actually shows up after the sixth and seventh day, after Adam had been put into the garden of Eden, in which God planted.

How does this make any sense at all?

Seems pretty clear. When God made Adam God also made Eve. Eve was within Adam. All of her DNA was within Adam. When God removed the rib he also removed the sweetest part of Adam. That is what made Adam desire Eve, she was his missing part, his sensitive side.

Old man
Mar 21st 2012, 06:03 PM
It's totally possible that Adam and Eve were already working on a family while in the garden, since God told them to be fruitful and multiply. And this would be before they even fell.

Possibly but the scripture only says that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden and doesn't mention any chillins following them out. If they had family before the fall would the children be innocent, not born into sin? Interesting thought.

markedward
Mar 21st 2012, 06:14 PM
Paul says that through Adam's sin, all of creation fell subject to the effects of sin; it wouldn't have mattered whether there were children born before or after Adam's own sin.

awestruckchild
Mar 21st 2012, 06:32 PM
Confusion starts almost immediately with the Bible in the first chapter of Genesis. This confusion is regarding man and woman, specifically woman.

The first mention of man is in Genesis 1:26 - 'And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...' Now, in Genesis 1:27 it says, '...male AND FEMALE he created them.' In Genesis 1:31, God saw every thing he had made and it was very good. Then it says, the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Genesis 2:1 begins by saying that the heavens and the earth were finished. Genesis 2:2 and so on begins talking about the seventh day, how it was made holy, etc.

Genesis 2:8 says, 'and there he put the man he had formed,' meaning Adam in Eden. There is no mention of Eve, of Woman, who should have already been created by the words of Genesis 1:27. In fact, woman's creation is in Genesis 2:22, after the sixth day in which female should have been created, and after man, Adam, was placed in Eden and in need of a helpmate.

Eve is supposed to be the first woman, and woman was supposedly created on the sixth day, yet Eve actually shows up after the sixth and seventh day, after Adam had been put into the garden of Eden, in which God planted.

How does this make any sense at all?

And here is another intriguing thing:
God said let there be light, DAYS before He created the sun and moon....

jayne
Mar 21st 2012, 07:08 PM
Light and light energy can exist in the universe without the moon and without the sun. Some say this initial light was God's glory. Some say it was massive light energy from other elements of objects He was creating.

I think of it like this. The lights in my bedroom can be on and very bright, but I still may need a flashlight to see everything under my bed or in a dark corner of a closet.

Revelation 21 says that in heaven there will be no sun or moon but it will be illuminated nonetheless.

awestruckchild
Mar 21st 2012, 07:16 PM
Hi Jayne,
I have been really digging your posts in some of these threads!
I always kind of pictured the light being the same light John talks about in the beginning of his gospel.

divaD
Mar 21st 2012, 07:47 PM
Some say this initial light was God's glory.

As to those who might see it like that, I wouldn't see how that would work tho. Why would God then have to say let there be light? Shouldn't there already be light via His presence of being there?

Then verse 4 states this.

Genesis 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

If that was meaning His glory, why would He see that His glory was good? Wouldn't His glory already be good, beyond good actually, and that He wouldn't need to conclude that after seeing the light?

awestruckchild
Mar 21st 2012, 07:55 PM
Hi DivaD,

I guess that depends on how you see "void" and "without form", or the "tohuw and bohuw"
It's a cool study, and pretty quick, because the phrase only occurs twice in the whole bible!
I see it from an artists perspective I guess. (Disclaimer: Didn't say a GOOD artist, just an artist.)

divaD
Mar 21st 2012, 10:57 PM
Hi DivaD,

I guess that depends on how you see "void" and "without form", or the "tohuw and bohuw"
It's a cool study, and pretty quick, because the phrase only occurs twice in the whole bible!
I see it from an artists perspective I guess. (Disclaimer: Didn't say a GOOD artist, just an artist.)



The 2nd time "void" and "without form" is used would be in Jeremiah 4:23. Obviously a future event from Jeremiah's perspective, since Israel is much of the context in that chapter, and the fact there would be no such thing as Israel as of yet in Genesis 1:2. So even tho similar language is used in Jeremiah 4, it would be out of context to place that anywhere but in Israel's future.

awestruckchild
Mar 22nd 2012, 12:10 AM
The 2nd time "void" and "without form" is used would be in Jeremiah 4:23. Obviously a future event from Jeremiah's perspective, since Israel is much of the context in that chapter, and the fact there would be no such thing as Israel as of yet in Genesis 1:2. So even tho similar language is used in Jeremiah 4, it would be out of context to place that anywhere but in Israel's future.

Absolutely.
But I mean, the sense of the words. The sense of the words isn't real good in either case in which they are used. It gives me the feeling of "not good." Tohuw and bohuw - not good. Void and without form-not good. Not to mention that "void and without form" leaves you scratching your head because God created the heavens and earth and the earth was....not good. In the first place, why form the separation of heaven and earth? I think satan had something to do with that...by the way, we could use you for the word study in the other thread. I know, I know, sounds like work, but read the thread through - it's intriguing enough to make the work worth it!

GitRDunn
Mar 22nd 2012, 03:44 AM
It was traditionally believed that Adam had 33 sons and 23 daughters.

Josephus says (parenthesis mine) , "He (Adam) had indeed many other children, but Seth in particular. As for the rest, it would be tedious to name them"- Antiquities 1.2:3
I was just curious what source you were using for the numbers 33 and 23? I had never heard specific numbers assigned to how many kids they had before.

awestruckchild
Mar 30th 2012, 01:11 AM
I think he was using the writing of a man named Josephus.

awestruckchild
Mar 30th 2012, 01:23 AM
As to those who might see it like that, I wouldn't see how that would work tho. Why would God then have to say let there be light? Shouldn't there already be light via His presence of being there?

Then verse 4 states this.

Genesis 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

If that was meaning His glory, why would He see that His glory was good? Wouldn't His glory already be good, beyond good actually, and that He wouldn't need to conclude that after seeing the light?

I missed this post until I was rereading this thread. THIS goes to exactly what I have been saying in a couple of different threads. We have all the clues we need right in these beginning verses. God does not like separations. That very first separation, if you look up all of the Hebrew words, was NOT good. So then, the quandary is: how did God create such awfulness and darkness? It can only be by a NEGATIVE creation. This is the ONLY WAY light can create darkness!

awestruckchild
Mar 30th 2012, 01:28 AM
Also, it fits seamlessly for the words I gave in the other thread. He called the light "everlasting" and He called the darkness- adversity; a twist away from the light.
It can't possibly make sense to call the light "morning" as we think of it and to call the darkness "night" as we think of it because the sun and moon WERE NOT CREATED YET.

Noeb
Mar 30th 2012, 04:07 PM
Also, Adam and Eve being the first man and woman had relations and created Cain and Abel. After Cain kills Abel and God punishes Cain, Cain states his fear of being killed by anyone who finds him. God said anyone that kills him will be punished sevenfold. If Adam and Eve were first, and they created Cain and Abel, where did these people Cain fears come from? Soon after, Cain's wife is mentioned. Where did she come from?

I assume that the answer is that Adam and Eve with the FIRST, not the ONLY? Correct? But why isn't there a mention of this?With everyone having 20 children and living 800 years, what Cain said makes sense to me.

Noeb
Mar 30th 2012, 04:19 PM
And here is another intriguing thing:
God said let there be light, DAYS before He created the sun and moon....He was letting the light from the first heaven shine on earth because it was covered in darkness.

awestruckchild
Mar 30th 2012, 05:00 PM
He was letting the light from the first heaven shine on earth because it was covered in darkness.

Yes!!!
And why and how is it that God created something covered in darkness?

Noeb
Mar 30th 2012, 06:44 PM
Yes!!!
And why and how is it that God created something covered in darkness?
Why? It was ruined because of Lucifer's rebellion. It wasn't a creation. It was already there. Its creation was in Genesis 1:1. What follows was a reconstruction from ruin because his hidden mystery had not been made known.

How? He said so. Light is necessary for life.

awestruckchild
Mar 30th 2012, 06:49 PM
Why? It was ruined because of Lucifer's rebellion. It wasn't a creation. It was already there. Its creation was in Genesis 1:1. What follows was a reconstruction from ruin because his hidden mystery had not been made known.

How? He said so. Light is necessary for life.

Yes!
So the words could be translated to give a more complete understanding, in my opinion.
But it isn't so necessary that it should ever cause a fight, because the Holy Spirit guides to all truth!
And it's very nice to meet you, Noeb.

Noeb
Mar 31st 2012, 06:11 AM
Yes!
So the words could be translated to give a more complete understanding, in my opinion.
But it isn't so necessary that it should ever cause a fight, because the Holy Spirit guides to all truth!I don't understand. Could you explain again?


And it's very nice to meet you, Noeb.Very nice to meet you, awestruckchild!!!

awestruckchild
Mar 31st 2012, 09:49 PM
I don't understand. Could you explain again?

Very nice to meet you, awestruckchild!!!

When it says in Genesis, that He separated the light from the darkness and He called the light "morning" and He called the darkness "evening", and evening passed and morning came, marking the first day. This was before the sun and moon were created, so these words do not give us a good understanding. What I have found is that a better translation to give the sense of the Hebrew words would be to say: and He called the light "everlasting" and He called the darkness "adversity;a twisting away of the light."

Noeb
Mar 31st 2012, 11:22 PM
Light from the heaven shined toward earth but was stopped by chaos (without form and void). Light could not reach the face of the water (darkness was upon the face of the deep). It was night. God made it so this would no longer be the case. It was day. The first natural day (light) since its ruin. So we went from a natural night (dark) to a natural day (light). The next two days continue the process of cleaning up of the atmosphere so life could exist on earth again. Now it's all clear, but there's only light from the heavens, which is not enough for life as God intends. There's light but there's also dark. It's gloomy, if you will. So God made the sun and moon. That's all I see in it. There's no contrast between everlasting and adversity; a twisting away of the light.

The sun and moon divided something. Divided One Thing. Did they divide everlasting and adversity; a twisting away of the light?

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

I said, "there's only light from the heavens, which is not enough for life as God intends. There's light but there's also dark. It's gloomy, if you will."
There wasn't a distinct day and night for seasons, days and years.

awestruckchild
Mar 31st 2012, 11:51 PM
Lol Noeb,
I'm not TALKING about the sun and moon!
This separation came BEFORE the sun and moon!
The "light" from the heavens is Jesus. He is definitely enough for life as God intends! He IS life!
The light was not shined toward earth until God commanded the light to shine - let there be Light in this darkness. Until then, He had twisted away/turned away/cast from His Presence(Light)
It's okay, Noeb. No one seems to see what I have here. It's okay.

Noeb
Apr 1st 2012, 12:08 AM
I see some of what you have there and I'm sure others do too. Part of it is not an uncommon interpretation. I just don't agree with it or what you are adding to it.

If Jesus was the light.....

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night

The sun and moon divided Jesus from what exactly?

The verses we are discussing are about God making an atmosphere where life can exist in seasons, days and years (v14).

The light was there (heaven -stars). In the beginning God created heaven and earth. He said let there be light in the earth that was in chaos and dark.

awestruckchild
Apr 1st 2012, 12:17 AM
I'm just glad someone is talking to me!
The sun and the moon were not Jesus. The sun and the moon are exactly what they are and appear to be. It is easy to understand them.
It is the verses before their creation that I am talking about.
The verses that talk about a morning and evening before the sun and moon were created, that talk about a "light" and a "darkness" that was BEFORE them.

Noeb
Apr 1st 2012, 01:59 AM
Glad to talk with you!

I know what you are talking about. The darkness before them was this

the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

This was the evening of the first day.

The light was this

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

This was the morning of the first day.

It was the first day
Gen 1:4 ..............God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 ..............And the evening and the morning were the first day.

It says
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.
My questions for you are, if Jesus was the light (Day)

Who or what was darkness (Night)?
How did the sun and the moon divide them?



Your interpretation has to hold up to what follows. The sun and moon divide day and night.

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:


How would the sun and moon divide Jesus (light/day) from -insert who or what was-(darkness/night).

In other words, as you say
"The sun and the moon are exactly what they are and appear to be. It is easy to understand them."
How did something so plain and easy to understand divide Jesus from -insert who or what was the darkness/night?

awestruckchild
Apr 1st 2012, 02:29 AM
The darkness that was upon the face of the deep is 2822 -

darkness 2822-{from 2821, which means: To be dark (as witholding light).} 2822-Figuratively, misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness.

So it can be understood as: And death, wickedness, misery, and destruction was on the face of the deep.

It does not then make sense to me to say later: and the death and wickedness, He called "night."
Because "night" to me is just nightime;when the literal sun sets. It doesn't mean 2822.

The sun and moon did not divide them. The sun and the moon are created days later.

Noeb
Apr 1st 2012, 05:25 AM
Same word......
Exo 10:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand toward heaven, that there may be darkness over the land of Egypt, even darkness which may be felt.
Exo 10:22 And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days:
Exo 10:23 They saw not one another, neither rose any from his place for three days: but all the children of Israel had light in their dwellings.

A darkness caused by God because of spiritual reasons does not mean is it cannot be literal.
He called the darkness night, and it does say the sun and moon divided, making it literal.

Noeb
Apr 1st 2012, 05:27 AM
Oh, and

Strong
H2822
חשׁך
chôshek
kho-shek'
From H2821; the dark; hence (literally) darkness;

Noeb
Apr 1st 2012, 08:41 AM
Same word......
Exo 10:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand toward heaven, that there may be darkness over the land of Egypt, even darkness which may be felt.
Exo 10:22 And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days:
Exo 10:23 They saw not one another, neither rose any from his place for three days: but all the children of Israel had light in their dwellings.

A darkness caused by God because of spiritual reasons does not mean is it cannot be literal.
He called the darkness night, and it does say the sun and moon divided, making it literal.


Oh, and

Strong
H2822
חשׁך
chôshek
kho-shek'
From H2821; the dark; hence (literally) darkness;

Before looking at Strong's definition I looked at how the word was used throughout scripture. When we look at dictionaries we are looking to man. When we look at how a word is used throughout scripture and get our definition from that and the context, we are looking to God. There are times it is not literal and times it is. Since this darkness is later divided by the sun and moon (context) we know this darkness is literal.

awestruckchild
Apr 1st 2012, 11:39 AM
Yes, I agree, of course, that a darkness caused by God can be literal. It can literally mean that He withholds the light of the Sun.
However, 1. There are not really that many Hebrew words compared to our language. So their words can have more and greatly varied meanings, depending on the intent of a sentence or complete passage. And 2. It makes no sense that God literally withheld the light of the Sun before the Sun was created.

So instead, I think it is just as John said in the beginning of his gospel, that this light is Jesus. And if it is as John said, then what, or who, is the darkness?

This really isn't a matter of: do we take it literally or do we take it spiritually because both make sense. This is a matter of: 1. What John said, and 2. the one way does not make sense because God had not yet created the Sun.

awestruckchild
Apr 1st 2012, 11:42 AM
Oh, and

Strong
H2822
חשׁך
chôshek
kho-shek'
From H2821; the dark; hence (literally) darkness;


But here, you have given the definition of 2821. The word is 2822. You have not given the definition for 2822.
When I gave the definition, I gave 2821 in brackets, because it is the root word that 2822 COMES from, so this is sometimes helpful for understanding, but then I also gave the definition for the actual word. You can't just look at the root word. You have to look at the actual word too.

awestruckchild
Apr 1st 2012, 12:01 PM
You know, this really isn't any different than any translation from one language to another. As someone in a thread earlier put it, you bring your own beliefs and learning to a translation - or even LACK of what you have learned about a non native language.

For instance, if English were not my native language, and I was translating something from English TO another language, and the sentence was: "It's cool," if I did not know the subculture of teenagers, I would translate it: It's chilly;not very warm. But the word in our language, because of our culture, can also mean: it's okay;don't worry about it; yes I agree it is good.

Someone might later read it and say: look, they also have THIS as the definition of "cool" and I think it makes more sense with the paragraph, which is two teenagers speaking.

The person in the other thread also pointed out that the bible was inspired, men spake as the Holy Spirit moved them, but the translators were men who knew another language and could translate. and we really have no assurance that THEY were Spirit inspired.

God has preserved His word, and it's obvious because of how many times men have tried to wipe it out. The Good News stands because of His preservation. So what we are talking about is not necessary to a mans salvation. He gave me life years before I ever noticed this light and darkness being something other than the sun and moon.

Noeb
Apr 1st 2012, 03:30 PM
Yes, I agree, of course, that a darkness caused by God can be literal. It can literally mean that He withholds the light of the Sun.
However, 1. There are not really that many Hebrew words compared to our language. So their words can have more and greatly varied meanings, depending on the intent of a sentence or complete passage. And 2. It makes no sense that God literally withheld the light of the Sun before the Sun was created.

So instead, I think it is just as John said in the beginning of his gospel, that this light is Jesus. And if it is as John said, then what, or who, is the darkness?

This really isn't a matter of: do we take it literally or do we take it spiritually because both make sense. This is a matter of: 1. What John said, and 2. the one way does not make sense because God had not yet created the Sun.I don't believe the sun was there and God was withholding its light on days 1-3. I believe the light was from the stars in heaven (v1).

Noeb
Apr 1st 2012, 03:32 PM
But here, you have given the definition of 2821. The word is 2822. You have not given the definition for 2822.
When I gave the definition, I gave 2821 in brackets, because it is the root word that 2822 COMES from, so this is sometimes helpful for understanding, but then I also gave the definition for the actual word. You can't just look at the root word. You have to look at the actual word too.Yes, I know, that's why I made post #36.

Noeb
Apr 1st 2012, 03:35 PM
You know, this really isn't any different than any translation from one language to another. As someone in a thread earlier put it, you bring your own beliefs and learning to a translation - or even LACK of what you have learned about a non native language.

God has preserved His word, and it's obvious because of how many times men have tried to wipe it out. The Good News stands because of His preservation.That's why I let how a word is used throughout scripture and the context in question to define a word. The literal sun divided the earlier light. If it is Jesus, explain.

awestruckchild
Apr 1st 2012, 03:35 PM
Oh, I see what you are saying. You think that when He said let there be light, it wasn't Jesus but was instead stars?

Noeb
Apr 1st 2012, 03:56 PM
Yes. The stars were there already, created in verse 1. He was cleaning up the atmosphere and allowing star light on the earth.

Noeb
Apr 1st 2012, 03:58 PM
Everything that is happening is on the earth. The earth was w/o form and void and darkness was......the Spirit came to the darkness and God said let there be light here.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.


v2 the earth was....and the Spirit went there
v3 God said let there be light where there is darkness
v4 God saw the light where there was darkness and said it is good

If Jesus was the light, did he see himself? Was there a question of good or bad? He saw what he had done on natural earth and it was good, just like the rest of the chapter.

ewq1938
Apr 1st 2012, 04:58 PM
The two accounts aren't meant to be read chronologically. They're looking at the same act of creation from entirely different perspectives.

That's the same as saying, "I made a sandwich first and then after making the sandwich I made soup" and "I made soup first then after the soup I made a sandwich." and claiming chronology isn't important, it's just two different perspectives. There is a clear chronological contradiction in the two statements and there are multiple similar examples between Gen 1 and Gen 2 as to what God did before he did something else etc.

OP is clearly onto something important.

awestruckchild
Apr 1st 2012, 05:46 PM
Everything that is happening is on the earth. The earth was w/o form and void and darkness was......the Spirit came to the darkness and God said let there be light here.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.


v2 the earth was....and the Spirit went there
v3 God said let there be light where there is darkness
v4 God saw the light where there was darkness and said it is good

If Jesus was the light, did he see himself? Was there a question of good or bad? He saw what he had done on natural earth and it was good, just like the rest of the chapter.

Okay. I now see what it is you think. I had never heard anyone say they thought the light spoken of there was stars. It is one way of looking at it. It has been good talking with you. I'm sure I'll be seeing you around in here. Take care, Noeb.

Samuel Cripps
Apr 2nd 2012, 02:12 AM
Both accounts read chronologically.


The two accounts aren't meant to be read chronologically. They're looking at the same act of creation from entirely different perspectives.

ewq1938
Apr 2nd 2012, 03:16 AM
Both accounts read chronologically.


I agree. It's just a big pill to swallow from the standard, historic way of understanding those chapters.

Noeb
Apr 2nd 2012, 03:30 AM
Okay. I now see what it is you think. I had never heard anyone say they thought the light spoken of there was stars. It is one way of looking at it. It has been good talking with you. I'm sure I'll be seeing you around in here. Take care, Noeb.Good to talk to you awestruckchild. God bless you!

jeffweeder
Apr 2nd 2012, 03:51 AM
I doubt that the author of Genesis would contradict himself in his second chapter. :o
I would say its complimentary.

It is already stated in Gen 1 that when God made Man on the sixth day, he made them male and female.
Gen 2 simply adds more details on what happened on the sixth day.......God creates land animals and then he creates the male. God decides on a nice piece of real estate to put the man, and God takes the time to show him all the animals-(God took Adam to the zoo ) Adam sees pairs of animals ( male and female ) and wonders where is other half is. God then completes his creation of Man. Adam is ecstatic, and there was evening and morning the sixth day, and all was good.

ewq1938
Apr 2nd 2012, 04:57 AM
I doubt that the author of Genesis would contradict himself in his second chapter. :o
I would say its complimentary.

He wouldn't of course but most people's renderings of the two chapters leave it very contradicting.




It is already stated in Gen 1 that when God made Man on the sixth day, he made them male and female.
Gen 2 simply adds more details on what happened on the sixth day

Nope. Gen 2 isn't about Gen 1 at all.





.......God creates land animals and then he creates the male.

That happens in Gen 1, but in Gen 2 animals are created after man, not before.





God decides on a nice piece of real estate to put the man, and God takes the time to show him all the animals-(God took Adam to the zoo ) Adam sees pairs of animals ( male and female ) and wonders where is other half is. God then completes his creation of Man. Adam is ecstatic, and there was evening and morning the sixth day, and all was good.

Adam didn't exist on the 6th day.

jeffweeder
Apr 2nd 2012, 05:20 AM
He wouldn't of course but most people's renderings of the two chapters leave it very contradicting.


Big mistake



Nope. Gen 2 isn't about Gen 1 at all.


Gen 2 compliments what the author has established in Chap 1

That happens in Gen 1, but in Gen 2 animals are created after man, not before.




Doesnt say that, it reiterates what God did in chap 1, being he formed the land animals, and then he made Adam.

Adam didn't exist on the 6th day.


God saw Adam and eve and said all is good..then there was eveng and morning ..a sixth day.
Chap 2 begins with God seeing all that he had done during those 6 days and resting the next day.
:(

.................................................. .....

ewq1938
Apr 2nd 2012, 05:22 AM
That happens in Gen 1, but in Gen 2 animals are created after man, not before.




Doesnt say that

Have you ever read it?

jeffweeder
Apr 2nd 2012, 05:59 AM
Have you ever read it?

:confused....Ive been trying to explain my opinion about Gen 1 and Gen 2 for a few posts.
What kind of fool do you take me for, thinking that i would try to explain something that i wasnt even bothered reading???

Fair go...i just might be right.
The Author of Genesis refers to an earlier statement he made ( in chap 1 ), about the creation of animals and Man. It seems ludicrous me that he would contradict the order and made himself to like a fool.
The author simply reminds in chap 2 that God formed the animals, as per chap1, and brings these animals to Adams attention, not that he formed the animals while Adam was looking on in Eden. God was bringing the already created animal kingdom to Adams attention, before he finished his creating Man, male and female.......God left the best till last.

The world was created for us to dwell in...............when all was ready for man, he created him, and rested..:)

ewq1938
Apr 2nd 2012, 06:18 AM
:confused....Ive been trying to explain my opinion about Gen 1 and Gen 2 for a few posts.
What kind of fool do you take me for, thinking that i would try to explain something that i wasnt even bothered reading???

I said that because obviously animals are created before man in Gen 1 but man is created first in Gen 2 before animals.

**Hello contradiction** ONLY if you think the two chapters are the same events.

jeffweeder
Apr 2nd 2012, 06:35 AM
I said that because obviously animals are created before man in Gen 1 but man is created first in Gen 2 before animals.

**Hello contradiction** ONLY if you think the two chapters are the same events.

I dont think God created the animals and Man twice.....so........The author knows what he is stating, which is the word of God. God doesnt contradict himself.

ewq1938
Apr 2nd 2012, 06:36 AM
I dont think God created the animals and Man twice.....so........The author knows what he is stating, which is the word of God. God doesnt contradict himself.

GREAT non-answer!

jeffweeder
Apr 2nd 2012, 06:43 AM
GREAT non-answer!

What was the Qu?

Didnt post 55 come across as my answer.?

ewq1938
Apr 2nd 2012, 06:45 AM
Didnt post 55 come across as my answer.?

No .

jeffweeder
Apr 2nd 2012, 06:49 AM
No.

:dunno:....................:sad:........:hug:

CaptGus
Apr 3rd 2012, 09:01 PM
God "created" male and female. God "formed" Adam. Two different verbs, two different actions. Study the Hebrew.

Noeb
Apr 4th 2012, 01:22 AM
God "created" male and female. God "formed" Adam. Two different verbs, two different actions. Study the Hebrew.I agree but I haven't made a connection as to why you bring it up. Can you explain?

CaptGus
Apr 5th 2012, 09:04 PM
As to why, I thought the topic was Gen. 1 and 2. Two different events, simple. God created man or better translated, mankind, as in all the races, male and female. Day 8, he forms Adam, a special man, a man in which His son would be born thru, if you will, the Bible is about 1 family, Adam's. Trace the lineage, the rest of us are grafted into the tree. Open your eyes and quit following traditions of men, sunday school stories are sweet and nice, but you better dig deeper.

Noeb
Apr 5th 2012, 09:41 PM
First, it was just a question.
Second, my eyes are fine and they only see 7 days.
Third, you don't even know what I believe. Why do you assume everyone but you follows tradition and Sunday school stories?

divaD
Apr 5th 2012, 09:51 PM
As to why, I thought the topic was Gen. 1 and 2. Two different events, simple. God created man or better translated, mankind, as in all the races, male and female. Day 8, he forms Adam, a special man, a man in which His son would be born thru, if you will, the Bible is about 1 family, Adam's. Trace the lineage, the rest of us are grafted into the tree. Open your eyes and quit following traditions of men, sunday school stories are sweet and nice, but you better dig deeper.

Out of curiosity, do you listen to Arnold Murray? He's about the only one I know of that teaches about an alleged 8th day man.