Genesis 1 and 2: The Difference Between Created and Formed

First, I never said that you couldn't hold your opinion that other versions are easier to understand and as accurate as the KJV. What I said was, that if you think that you're English version is accurate, and it was influenced by the KJV, then you have to take the KJV as accurate also. So me using it shouldn't be an issue. I'm not downplaying your version at all. In fact, I fealt you were implying that the KJV might be less reliable. Maybe I'm mistaken by that.I think that there's not a problem to use the KJV for a literal interpretation of the word of God. Besides, I haven't seen any language but English on this site anyway, so any complaints about using a Bible in our language are silly.

quote:

---

Besides, I haven't seen any language but English on this site anyway

---

No one of the members speaks hebrew and might want to use the original terms rather than their translations.

quote:

---

What I said was, that if you think that you're English version is accurate, and it was influenced by the KJV, then you have to take the KJV as accurate also.

---

That doesn't have anything to do with what I said and it isn't true. Just because a translation follows the KJV at one point (say, because of the literary influence) doesn't mean that it can't be more accurate at another point.As for the idea that all translations are inerrant I guess you haven't seen any of the rants by the KJV-only crowd.

quote:

---

I haven't seen any language but English on this site anyway, so any complaints about using a Bible in our language are silly.

---

Most discussions don't try to look at such subtle differences. Generally the differences aren't important enough that we need to do the extra work (although there is considerable reference to Hebrew and even Greek in discussion of Isaiah 7:14). In this case it is silly not to at least refer to the Hebrew.

Paul, the subtle differences that you are saying I shouldn't use, are just as subtle as the differences that people are using to refute a literal Bible. People ARE using subtle differences. The whole concept that Gen. 1 and 2 are contradictory is based on the subtle difference that in the second chapter, when it overlaps the creation story, it changes the order in which it mentions man and beast. Click on the link I provided earlier if you want to see the original thread I was responding to.

quote:

---

People ARE using subtle differences

---

Remember that we are talking about subtle differences in word choice. Something that has to be checked against the original language, to tell if it is the choice of the original author or the choice of the translator.

quote:

---

The whole concept that Gen. 1 and 2 are contradictory is based on the subtle difference that in the second chapter, when it overlaps the creation story, it changes the order in which it mentions man and beast.

---

That's neither subtle nor the sort of difference that actually requires referring to the original language. The only reason you'd need to refer to the original language in that case is if you were alleging an error in translation.

Attention All,

​

This is the Bible Study Forum and the originator was very specific in Message 1 as to what is being discussed: The difference between the English words created and formed.

​

This is not a discussion about what translation is best or if a translation influenced others.

​

Please address the arguments presented in Message 1.

​

Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

​

Thank youEdited by AdminPD, : Bold

added by edit: sorry pd, saw the message after the post.Edited by arachnophilia, : post retracted.

---

you mean me? i don't actually speak hebrew (fluently) but i do know a little. but i have run into two (former?) members that did speak hebrew. one was fairly new and from israel, and the other was amlodhi.anyways, i'm not sure the hebrew would say anything the english doesn't, because the translation of ‘ to "created," to "formed," and to "made," is fairly strictly literal and consistent.

---

opps! clearly I've been over impressed by your skills my apologies.

quote:

---

Isa 43:7

​

Even every one that is called by my name:
for I have created him for my glory,
I have formed him;
yea, I have made him.

---

quote:

---

Isa 45:18

​

For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens;
God himself that formed the earth and made it;
he hath established it, he created it not in vain,
he formed it to be inhabited:
"I am the LORD; and there is none else."

---

quote:

---

Psa 95:5

​

The sea is his, and he made it:
and his hands formed the dry land.

---

quote:

---

Isa 27:11

​

When the boughs thereof are withered, they shall be broken off:
the women come, and set them on fire:
for it is a people of no understanding:
therefore he that made them will not have mercy on them,
and he that formed them will shew them no favour.

---

quote:

---

Isa 44:2

​

Thus saith the LORD that made thee,
and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee;
Fear not, O Jacob, my servant;
and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.

---

quote:

---

Isa 45:7

​

I form the light, and create darkness:
I make peace, and create evil:
I the LORD do all these things.

---

although not in hebrew, since you're concerned with english:

quote:

---

Rom 9:20

​

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

---

one has to understand the structure of hebrew poetry. one line often repeats the next, in very similar (synonymous) wording. the isaiah verse about evil is an especially good example. "light" and "good" are clearly being associated, yet look at the verbs. "make" and "form" also mean the same thing, and HAVE TO mean the same thing. this is an incredibly contortionist way to read the text. how do you make something, and then form it? you can make the raw materials, and then form something out of the materials, but that's not what's happening here. in genesis 2, the material god uses to make man is the ground.but there's an even bigger problem with your idea.

quote:

---

Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

---

god makes woman, not "forms" woman. there's another problem here. nowhere in genesis does it say that god "formed" the earth. so if "created" covers the void problem, and "formed" covers the without form problem -- where does the earth acquire form? secondly,

quote:

---

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void;

---

this is one sentance. what's further is that god does not "create" the earth in genesis 1, unless you're considering the first verse to mean that. and if so, that happens before "the void problem" and not after. on the contrary, it is because we're reading it in a very literal way. i think you will find that i am often the most literal person in biblical debates here. i have no porblem, however, with the contradiction because i understand the context. not just the textual, but the historical and social context as well. no, the first 3 and a half verses are the end of chapter 1. the chapters should split here:

quote:

---

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,

---

try reading it that way, read from genesis 1:1 to the first half of 2:4, stop, go get a snack, and come back and read the second half of genesis 2:4, to the end of the chapter 2 (or 3, or 4). it really makes a lot more sense that way.

---

no problem.

---

Doesn't this statement prove that it is impossible to be a literalists?
Or at least be a literarlist, and be in unison with other literalists?To Teet's
From Message 1"The second chapter. Notice the first five verses are an account of what was created in the first chapter. After this account, no longer is the word created or made used in Chapter 2,"I think this is an excellent point. Why give an account of what just happened, and then contradict yourself? (no doubt someone will reply, because the bible is wrong here) But maybe it's not wrong, maybe we are reading it wrong. After all how do you generalize creation in a few paragraph's? Surely some facts are left out, and we only need to know certain things, in order to find God.

quote:

---

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

---

So at this point we have a formless "man"? Yet, it claims that God created him in His image. Is God's image one without form? If so, then modern humans are not the image of God.

quote:

---

Gen 1:28 -- And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

​

Gen 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, when God was talking to the newly created (yet formless) man and woman--telling them to "multiply and replenish the earth"--He was talking to a formless, and non-living creature? If man wasn't fully alive until Gen 2:7, then His creation is not finished. If His creation is not finished, then He has rested on the Seventh Day--because He claims He was finished--, yet, He wasn't done, clearly.Do you not realize that your arguement is far too picky and pointless? The story begins to make even less sense when reading into each and every word.

quote:

---

Gen 2:18 -- And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. (19) And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air...

---

Why is God planning on making "an help meet for him [man]" if God has already made the creatures. What God really needs to do is just form them, right? Yet He clearly indicates that He plans to make them. And after He makes that plan, He then forms them.Do you see once again how you're ripping the meaning down until it doesn't exist. It's quite clear from this passage that "make" and "form" are the SAME! And if they're not, God is planning on doing something that He's already done. A wee forgetful for the Almighty, wouldn't you say?Trék

The account in Genesis 1 is the chronology of Creation. The account in Genesis 2 is not about the chronology of Creation at all. The Creation story is over, summed up in fact at the beginning of chapter 2, in "these are the generations . . . The account here is about specifics of Adam's relation to the Creation, beginning with the plants.About literalism, the text doesn't have to be word-for-word exact in the target languages to be the word of God. As I said, it is the MEANING that is the point. You don't get exact word-for-word from one language to another, but a good translator aims for accurate conveyance of the meaning of the text. Good Bible teachers study the original languages to arrive at their own assessment of the given translation's success at conveying the meaning.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

We don't have the original language.Also to translate it, you need to know exactly how things where in those days. We do not have all the facts of how things were then, so there is bound to be errors in certain translations. That's why I think it is impossible to be a literalist, for those 2 reasons.This does not take away from the importance of the bible. I think it is more important to find God, and be in touch with the Holy Spirit, and let it help you in life, instead of relying on translations of texts, you get real time input for real time situations, if you remember to focus on God.