Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2

Hi, Why then has the HS guided so many people to different interpretations? Well, from your criteria it HAS to be consistent doesn't it?However, objective study of the biblical texts reveals that there is a great deal of inconsistency in the texts. This is no big deal of course, as this does not affect the purpose of the authors.Anyone who takes the bibical texts as being literal (I am talking OT here), is missing out on so much of what this excellent collection of ancient texts can tell us.Nice to meet youBrian.

There's a reaon why I stated that I was using Genesis 2:18-19. Is there a reason why you took Genesis 2:19 out of context, omitting 2:18 even though I had specifically mentioned it ?Genesis 2:18

quote:

---

18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

---

Now I do not presume in advance that these verses must contradict - that would bias the result as much as assuming that they cannot.Can you show that it is reasonable to read the verses in question in a way that does not contradict without relying on the assumption that they cannot ?

Paulk,The first time I read Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, I didn't see the apparent contradictions you mentioned.I only realized that some people interpreted it that way when I joined this board.I will address your questions later on today.

Brian,It is nice to meet you also. I feel as if I know you somewhat from reading some of your threads.You and WT really impress me with your insight.I will get to your questions later on as well.

We don't know that this is actually the case.Perhaps the problem is that people sometimes don't pray for guidance, and don't ask questions when they come across these verses.

Genesis 2:18 refers to Eve's creation. It is reasonable to avoid assigning a new chronology to Genesis 2:19 if you accept that the chronology has already been given in Genesis 1.Have you tried reading it this way?

Thanks to everybody for their responses.I have to go off-line now but I will be back later to continue.

Actually, I was not only giving my opinion, but that of much of the Christian Faith as well. For example, Episcopla Bishop Sims of the Atlanta Diocese said in his Pastorl letter on Evolution It is two different and mutually exclusive statements. Chapter 1 and 2 tell totally different stories.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

i first assumed the general to specific idea, but it doesn't work.for starters, genesis 1 and 2 are about the same length, covering the same thing. first, let's get our stories straight. the christian numbering system messed up here.the story we're calling "chapter one" here goes from 1:1 ("When Eloyhim began to create the heavens and the earth...") to the middle 2:4 ("...Such is the story of heaven and earth when they were created.") see how the two verse serve as bookends to the story?the story we're calling "chapter two" goes from the middle of 2:4 ("When YHVH Eloyhim made earth and heaven...") and actually goes to the end of chapter four as almost one complete story, but we're gonna break it off at 2:24 ("Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh").so let's look at the obvious differences. the first account tells us the creation of everything, as made obvious by the end of the story. the second story tells the creation of the earth only, and only mentions that god made the heavens as well. we're not told how god made the earth, or the heavens, or anything but man -- out of dust. the first account has god creating man out of thin air, by speaking. the second has him physically making man with his own hands. both contain the idea that we have something of god in us: in two it's the breath, and in one it's the image.as pointed out before, genesis 1 says that man and woman were created at one time, male and female just like god. but genesis 2 seeks to explain the origins of marriage, why man and woman are destined to become one flesh: woman was taken from man. this idea appears nowhere in chapter one.the two stories even refer to god different. one by name, the other as god, informally.ok, now check this out. i assume you know the order of creation in the first story. animals and plants come before man.

quote:

---

When the LORD God made earth and heaven (when no shrub of the field was yet on the earth and no grasses of the field had yet sprouted, because the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil, but a flow of would well up from the ground and water the whole surface of the earth) the LORD God formed 'Adam from the dust of the earth. He blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being/

---

read that again. no grasses, no plants, only adam. adam is alone. at this point there is no garden, and certainly no animals. i know that because the next verse go on to describe the creation of eden, which is not mentioned at all in chapter one.

quote:

---

The LORD God said, "It is not good for man to be alone; I will make a fitting helper for him." And the LORD God formed out of the earth all the wild beasts and all the birds of the sky, and brought them to man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that would be its name.

---

then it says no animal was good company for adam, so god creates another human being (eve) from adam's own body, and he seems to be happy with that. but notice that animals were made for adam in this account, where in chapter one they were made in preparation for adam. same with plants.so yes, there is a conflict.

No, Genesis 2:18 does NOT refer to the creation of Eve. Are you incapable of reading in context ? Eve is created in Genesis 2:21-22.
Did your "Holy Spirit" tell you otherwise ?I specifically stated that Genesis 2:18-19 were the verses that put the creation of birds after the creation of Man - yet you insist on taking both verses individually rather than reading them together.And I asked for a reasonable reading of the verses - which means that you have to offer an interpretation that does not require distorting or misrepresenting them. Well you already failed THAT. I take it that your idea of being "reasonable" is to refuse to read the verses together so that you can pretend that the contradiction doesn't exist. That is not reasonable at all.

dpardo writes:

quote:

---

If I am presented with a book that is claimed, by some, to be inerrant, should I automatically assume that it isn't and look for contradictions.

---

Yes.Even if you are presented with a book that isn't claimed by anybody to be inerrant, you should automatically assume that it isn't and look for contradictions.It's called "critical thinking" and "reading for content."

quote:

---

Or, should I read it, and when I see an apparent contradiction, study it, ask questions, and make sure I interpreted it correctly?

---

That last, of course. But you never take anybody's word that something is inerrant. To do so means you've turned your brain off.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Hi Jar,I saw a link to that letter on another thread awhile back.Is it possible he could be wrong?

It does work. Genesis 1:27 says:The verse above simply states that he created them.

It says that Gods (Elohim) created (Bara') man ('Adam) in his own image; male (zakar) and female (n@qebah) he created (bara') them.The stem is a qal verb pattern; it means simple or casaul action of the root. Example:he sat, he ate, he went, he said, he rose, he boughtThe mood of the verb is perfect. Perfect expresses a completed action, and is often used where the present is used in English. Occasionally it refers to a future act for which there is a high degree of certainty (for example, "I give thee..."), and it can refer to a past act "having been done" with respect to the current context.For example, I could say "I ran to the store. I had finished cleaning the kitchen." "Had finished" would be perfect mood, because while it describes something that took place in the past, it took place consecutively to "I ran to the store".)An example of this kind of usage in the bible is "God saw everything he had made...". "had made" is the proper translation of the perfect tense, because it takes place after he made everything.You may remember this sort of stuff from grammar: Past perfect refers to an event that occured in the past relative to the current frame of reference (which can be anything), Perfect (or "present perfect") refers to an event that occured in the present relative to the current frame of reference, and Future perfect refers to an event that will occur in the future relatve to the current frame of reference.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Genesis 2:18 does refer to the creation of Eve.Just because Eve's creation is not mentioned until verse 22 does not mean that she was not his "help meet".Genesis 2:18: