Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2

quote:

---

The A&E story follows this statement.

​

When did the Lord God create the Heaven and the Earth according to the text under discussion?

​

Did the Heaven and the Earth exist at Genesis 1:2? Yes/No

---

No.Genesis 1:1 simply says that long ago God created everything we know. (They knew anyway)Genesis 1:2 begins the Priestly writers story of God creating everything we know (they knew) with a temple-as-cosmos motif.

quote:

---

Did the man exist at Genesis 1:2? Yes/No

---

No

quote:

---

To even discuss these two verses takes the discussion outside of what I stated in the OP I was affirming.

---

Remember that.

quote:

---

I can still find no verse that kosmos is translated mankind.

---

It isn't translated as mankind, it refers to mankind. You apparently didn't read the link for kosmos.

quote:

---

The man formed from the dust of the earth begat Abel and Cain who begat Enoch who begat Irad who begat Mehujael who begat Methusael who begat Lamech who begat Jabal and Jubal.

​

Cain killed Abel and Lamech killed a young man.

​

We have 8 generations of people represented in Genesis 4:16-20.

​

Was any of these people in existence in Genesis 1:2? Yes/No

---

No, Genesis 4 comes after Genesis 1 and continues on with descendants in Genesis 5 until we get to Noah and his sons. There is no break for destruction.The first paragraph of Genesis 5 is the Redactor's way of associating the A&E story with the creation of man on day six. He already put the A&E story where he wanted it.If you disagree, show where the text mentions the destruction and flooding of the planet.

quote:

---

If the penalty of sin is not inheritable why would there have to be a connection?

​

Sin had entered the universe and by sin death and separation from God was the result

​

My contention is that sin is an act of disobedience.

​

I further contend that the penalty of sin which is death was not removed from the universe with the passing of the descendents of the man formed from the dust of the ground.

---

So God was unable or unwilling to remove sin and death from the "universe" before creating new humans and maintained separation due to the first humans mistake. This means God has no control over death in your hypothesis and your hypothesis does make the penalty of sin inherited.In your hypothesis, God made the choice to create mankind with good and evil inclinations and he created them mortal. He chose to continue the penalty on the new creation.While sin is not inherited, descendants can suffer from the consequences of their parents choices.This should not be the case in your hypothesis since God created new people. They aren't descendants of the first man.Your hypothesis does make the penalty inherited. The new people inherited the penalty due to no fault of their own. God made them that way.Your personification of sin and death as things that can exist or infect the world around us regardless of what God wants, is ludicrous. You've left God powerless. If he doesn't have the power to clean death and sin out of the "universe" way back then, then the death of his son isn't going to give him any more power to control sin and death. If God doesn't have control over sin and death, then how can we? How can his Holy Spirit give us control, when he himself doesn't have control?

quote:

---

Mankind is separated from God because the first man disobeyed God. So the only choice mankind has is to accept the offer of God to restore them to the original condition when man was in the garden.

---

That's not what your hypothesis presents. By destroying the first creation, God had the chance to restore man to the original condition. He chose not to. As I said above, if he couldn't do it then, why believe he can do it now?

quote:

---

Jesus came to remove the penalty for the disobedience of the man formed from the dust of the ground which was separation from God and death which is the penalty for sin.

​

So with the death of the man formed from the dust of the ground in the day he ate of the forbidden fruit that penalty was not removed and still exists today.

​

All mankind are separated from God and must die.

​

Because of the sacrifice at Calvary man can be reunited with God and victory over death can be gained.

---

So the supposed death of 9 generations of people wasn't enough to pay the "penalty". Sad.

quote:

---

You have made several assertions that the text does not support my position. But you failed to answer many questions that would clarify some of those things.

---

Agreeing that those are the words in the KJV doesn't support your interpretation of them. Agreeing that those are the words in the KJV doesn't support your hypothesis that the A&E story took place in Genesis 1:1.As I said before, we don't disagree on what words are in the KJV, which is all you can positively assert. This isn't really about what the words are written, it's about where you are relocating the A&E story regardless of where the Redactor placed the story. So please stop repeating the text questions as if responding yes, means anything.The text does not say there was a destruction of A&E's descendants until we get to Noah and the flood. You haven't shown text that supports the destruction of the first people.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

They always take the two stories and put them in a blender and try to make them into one story. With the one in chapter 1 being the original and the one in Chapter 2 being an amplification.

​

The problem arises because there are some differences that cannot be reconciled no matter how hard you try.

​

They are two different stories about two different events with an undetermined light period existence between the events.

---

The Redactor wanted the stories to be viewed that way.They are two different stories, not written to compliment each other. They have different purposes for their audiences.The older A&E story is more of a children's just so story. The lesson is the point, not so much the details. People make too much out of it.The newer one was a set up for the Sabbath. Again, the details, not so much the point.You're over thinking it.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

You answer NO to the question did "Did the Heaven and the Earth exist at Genesis 1:2". Then you make the following statement.

​

purpledawn writes:

​

Genesis 1:1 simply says that long ago God created everything we know

​

We know the universe exists, we know that the earth exists.
We know humans exist, we know plants exist, we know that creatures and fowl exist.

​

You see I believe what you said but you don't.

​

I believe that in Genesis 1:1 God created everything that is.

​

That is what I have affirmed took place in Genesis 1:1 and the history given of that day as declared in Genesis 2:4.

---

I do believe what I said, the problem is you have a different view. You seem to be treating Genesis 1 as a journal and it isn't. You aren't understanding what I'm saying.Genesis 1:1 is an opening sentence that puts the audience in the right time frame for the story that follows and tells the subject of the story.Oral stories are updated through the years to fit with the culture of the time. Once a story is put to paper, it is stuck in time unless revised.Here is an example of the creation story updated in the early 1900's. The story reflects what the Christians of the time felt was important concerning creation and the fall.The authors of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 each had their own purpose for their stories. The Redactor had his own purpose for putting the two stories together in the order that he did.You have your own reason for why you need the A&E story to fit in Genesis 1:1. Peg has her reasons for needing the word day to mean an age. I have my reasons for trying to understand what the original authors were telling their audience.If you want to update the story to fit with current knowledge, then just update the story and acknowledge that you're revising the story to reflect current knowledge and beliefs. Don't try to pretend that the text or the original authors support your revision.

quote:

---

In the blue letter bible reference I can find no translation of Romans 5:12 that you quote above the closest is the New Living Translation perversion which reads:

---

I said (and you quoted it) kosmos wasn't translated as mankind, but refers to mankind as shown in the 5th definition. That was not a translation of Romans 5:12. It referred to the meaning of kosmos as used in Romans 5:12. Look at the Thayer's Lexicon Help section. My response was based on how the text is presented as a whole, not based on when the stories were individually written. As I've said, the Redactor put them in that order for a reason.When looking at the stories individually and when they were written, I've also said that the stories weren't written to compliment or support each other. They have different purposes. As the Priestly story is written, the answer is still, No. Like I said, it isn't a journal.

quote:

---

I agree that whoever wrote what is listed as chapter 5 verse 1-3 was stating this is the generations of the man created in Genesis 1:27.

---

That's not what I'm saying, so you aren't agreeing with me. By combining the name "Adam" and that mankind was made male and female, the Redactor is attempting to connect the A&E story with the sixth day of creation.The birth of Seth is at the end of the A&E story and the Redactor continues with Seth in the genealogy. Cain's descendants are already listed in the story.

quote:

---

This verse plainly states the heaven and the earth was created in a day. (A day is a light period or a light period and a dark period combined).

---

No, Genesis 2:4 is not saying that everything was done in a single day. The use of yom in that sentence is not literal. In this case, yom is being used to refer to an unspecified period of time. Like "back in the day".

quote:

---

If you disagree with this story give the text that refutes it.

---

As I said, you can double talk your hypothesis to fit your doctrine, but as I said, your hypothesis makes the salvation issue looks worse than atheists already view it. You're creating your own version, so there isn't anything I can respond to. It isn't in the text.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

Let me get this straight.

​

Whoever wrote the two stories wanted them viewed as two events.

​

The older story is given in Genesis 2:4-25.

​

The story in Genesis 1:2-2:3 was to set up a Sabbath.

​

Is that summation correct?

---

No.The A&E story was written as a just so story, not an actual event.The Priestly writer wrote his creation story to point to the Sabbath rest. Temple-as-cosmos motif. Message 130They aren't journals. Creation is the inspiration for both stories.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

I have no problem with your quotation of the passage but your interpretation of it.

---

Exactly!!!!The printing on the page is not the issue. It's his interpretation that's being questioned and how it impacts commonly understood doctrine.

quote:

---

I only mention this because you said you first came to some understanding at 11 years old. And you clung to it. I also continued my erroneous understanding for some years before I realized I was mistaken.

---

It is amazing what gets into our heads as a kid and sticks there. I've cleared out a few of those errors over the years.

quote:

---

Dear brother. What do I do when you continue to insinuate that if I do not buy your dogmatic opinion I accuse God of lying ?

---

Annoying, isn't it?

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

Hey, you edited out the "Shut Up", I liked that part with the laugh.
(Since this new version of software sends the whole post to the person you're responding to, they receive the first version, no edits.)

quote:

---

I have a Christian friend who tells me every so often he "reboots". He says he throws away all his theology and reads the Bible as if for the first time.

---

I think that's a good habit.

quote:

---

And where is the greater weight of evidence.

---

I don't see the evidence supporting ICANT's hypothesis and I have a rather unorthodox way of looking at the Bible.I don't see the text or the theology of the time supporting two different creations of man. I think the A&E story was chosen by the Redactor to depict the making of the man created on the sixth day.I understand what ICANT is saying and the reasoning behind his hypothesis, but I don't feel his interpretation is what the original audience would have understood to the best of my knowledge.I feel his hypothesis would put a serious crimp in the common doctrines of Christianity and give atheists more ammunition to cry lunacy.Even ICANT knows that to understand any writing one must know:Who is speaking or writing?
Whom or about whom is he speaking or writing to?
What subject is he speaking or writing about?
When or about what time is he speaking or writing about?
Why, the reason or occasion for the speaking or writing?Unfortunately in this thread he has chosen to ignore those specifics. Message 154His hypothesis has been questioned by me and by you. His explanations have not convinced me his hypothesis is viable. There are too many holes. His explanations don't seem to be convincing you either. So what does that tell us.You, who are more prone to bringing unrelated text together for a purpose isn't buying it and me, who tries to stay within the reality behind the text isn't buying it. If our two extremes aren't buying it, will the those in the middle accept his hypothesis?You had the same questions about the Hebrew that I did. He should be able to find a Hebrew scholar somewhere that agrees with his translation if it is a credible translation. I haven't seen it yet, have you?When he starts flipping back and forth between Hebrew and English, his hypothesis loses credibility.This is historic! You and I are sorta somewhat in agreement and kinda sorta on the same side although from different angles.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

Lets put them to use.

​

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

​

Who is speaking or writing?
For the sake of argument lets say the writer.

---

You know as well as I do that these specifics refer to the whole piece, not just a single sentence unless, of course, a single sentence is all that is written in the piece; but I will humor you.This is narration written by the Priestly writer or Moses if you prefer.You forgot a question: Who is the piece written for?If one considers Moses to be the author, then the piece was written for the Hebrews under his leadership. If one goes by the Documentary Hypothesis, the piece was written for the people of the Southern Kingdom and refugees from the North.

quote:

---

About whom is the writer writing?
God

---

I can agree for this sentence.

quote:

---

What is the writer writing about?
The Heaven and The Earth.

---

In just that sentence the writer is still writing about God. It's about what God did long ago, not about the heaven and earth.

quote:

---

Why is the writer writing about the Heaven and the Earth?
To inform us of their beginning to exist.

---

The reason for the sentence is a lead in to the story. By itself without the story, it just says that long ago God created everything.You forgot when.Per the Documentary Hypothesis sometime after the fall of the Northern Kingdom. I don't know the date for Moses.

quote:

---

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,

​

Who is speaking or writing?
For the sake of argument lets say the writer.

---

Another narrative sentence. Moses if you feel he is the author, but per the Documentary Hypothesis the first portion is written by the Redactor (These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created) and the second half is by the older J writer (in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,).

quote:

---

Who or what is the writer writing about?
The Heaven and The Earth.

​

What about the Heaven and the Earth is the writer writing?
The writer is writing about the history (generations) of the Heaven and the Earth.

---

The writer isn't really writing about anything when we take the sentence by itself. The first half is referring forward or backwards depending on how one reads it and the second half is referring to the past.

quote:

---

Why is the writer writing about the history of the Heaven and the Earth?
To inform us of what happened in the DAY The Heaven and The Earth was created.

---

Wrong question. Why is he writing that sentence? What was the purpose?The sentence was written to combine to separate stories separated by time into one story.Who was it written for and when: The first half was probably written for the people at the time of Ezra. The second half for the people of the Kingdom of Juda about 950 BCE.

quote:

---

This is my examination of Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 2:4 as they are recorded in the KJV Bible.

​

Now if I am wrong in my examination please present yours.

---

Again, it is unreasonable to look at these sentences as existing alone from the rest of the piece.If you're a writer, you'd know better.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

Well in 2004 hurricane Ivan came along and did a lot of damage to the house and all the repairs listed from ICANT 1:2-1:9 had to be made so the house was livable.

​

Please explain the difference in this story and the one I have discussed in this thread concerning Genesis chapter 1 and 2.

---

The difference is that you're recounting an actual event (unless you're lying) that happened to you. As for the layout, there's no difference from your interpretation, because you wrote it to fit your interpretation. As you can see, your story is bassackwards, as is your interpretation. Yours reads as journal entries, not a story. When you actually tell the tale of your house to family and friends, you wouldn't tell it in this manner. As written we can't understand your narration without you providing the missing details. You just look like a poor writer.The two stories are a few hundred years apart and the piecing together is a few hundred years later. The Redactor wanted the two independent stories to be seen as one. Chapter 5 is also evidence of the Redactor trying to mesh the stories together and associate the A&E story with the man created on day six.Now if you can find in the Jewish oral tradition that there was a disaster and God started over, please show it. I haven't found such info in the legends. That and the Oral Law are where we would find the "rest of the story" so to speak.Genesis 1 is not a journal.

quote:

---

You can determine from ICANT 1:1 that in 1995 I built a house.

​

You can determine from ICANT 2:1 and the history given the details of the house I built in 1995.

---

Actually, by itself, 2:1 doesn't tell us anything. It just refers us forward. That's why I said the who, whom, what, when and why are used for the whole piece not just one sentence. It's still about the purpose of the story for the audience, not you.None of the Bible stories gives you the disaster you need to make your hypothesis work.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

It was an actual event. Even my condo lost the roof and got all messed up but I did not build it.

​

So my story was arranged like I wanted it to be.

---

But you arranged it to mirror your hypothesis interpretation. If you recounted the event to friends and family, you wouldn't write it or tell it in that fashion. Oral stories have to be interesting to be remembered. Yours would not be told around the campfire.

quote:

---

You are saying it would have made more sense if I had told it like this.

---

No, it still doesn't make sense. The disaster is left out. That's the event that ties the two together. You're still writing it like a journal.

quote:

---

That is the way I think Genesis chapter 1 and 2 should read but your redactors or somebody decided it was one story and tried to make it look like one story.

---

No, the stories should be read as they appear in the book. The Redactor didn't decide it was one story. The Redactor put the two together and wrote some linking sentences to make the stories seem related. The Redactor couldn't leave out the Genesis 1 story because it speaks of the Sabbath. The A&E story told people why things were the way they were. He had a mixture of the Northern and Southern kingdoms. He was trying to blend the two sides.According to Richard Elliott Friedman in the book "Who Wrote The Bible?", the Priestly writer wrote his version of the J&E stories. Just like we have Bible stories written in current vernacular and embellished to present lessons to our current culture.Unfortunately, you are adding a disaster that has no support in the Bible or science from what I know.The purpose of the Genesis 1 story is a setup for the Sabbath Law and it emphasizes that God created all things.The purpose of the earlier A&E story was to explain why things are the way they are. A just-so-story.The Redactor's purpose was to blend the two.What is your purpose?
What are you trying to tell your audience?I see no useful purpose for your hypothesis.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

I have no purpose.

---

You do have a purpose for your writing. The purpose is to empty the thoughts out of your head. If it works for you great! I have several stories I've written, but didn't do anything with.Too bad dumping here on EvC didn't help.Are you close to the finish or just starting?

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

If you really want to talk about plural, well, the dictionary definition itself says "In Grandpa's day" to mean during his life - or are you more learned than the writers of the dictionary you lean on?

​

* yes, that's how the bible defines it, "the EVENING and the MORNING of the first day"

---

Same song, different opponents. Over 500 posts and ICANT still can't understand the simple usage of day.We've been over the same argument with him in this thread. See Message 193, Message 241, and Message 281. He and Peg have their own purpose and need the meaning that serves their purpose regardless of what basic English and grammar and regardless of what the more learned or scholars tell us.Maybe you and Ringo can find something different that we haven't tried yet to help him "see the light". Edited by purpledawn, : Edits

---

The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. --Gospel of Mary

quote:

---

I guess you could call it in the day that I worked at the Church but that would not be accurate. Would it?

​

I guess you could call it in the age I worked at the Church but that would not be accurate either. Would it?

---

You are correct that the usage of "in the day" or age is not appropriate for your little scenario.But the phrase "in the day" is appropriate for Genesis 2:4 and does not refer to a specific day as I've shown you several times in this thread. The idiom isn't that difficult.4a was supposedly written by the Redactor. Chapter 5 is also considered to be the work of Redactor.The J writer's story had it's purpose and neither the Priestly writing nor the Redactor had added their twist to the story. The Priestly writer knew of the J story but wrote his story differently for his own purpose. The Redactor worked to stitch the stories together so the exiles would be able to see stories that were familiar to them.Since the majority of the people were illiterate, they only knew what they heard and probably just like the majority of people today, that stitching doesn't register. They see two stories.Look at how they are broken up for the kids. And It Was Real Good
God's Green ThumbNotice that this author understands the "in the day" idiom. He starts: Back in the day ...when God first made the Earth, God looked down and he saw that there was no one to take care of it.If you want to write your own version of the creation story, go for it, but admit that it is your own version. The stories we have in the Bible do not support your theory. You have to add to the stories to make them support your theory, which means you're writing your own version.

---

The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. --Gospel of Mary

quote:

---

Can you explain why the authors of your sourse used the pharse
"Back in the day" in God's Green Thumb

​

But from the same source a little further in the book they use the phrase "Back in the days of Adam" in reference to Genesis 5

---

In English we can say it either way.Our English phrase "back in the day", supposedly came about in the late 1970's. Like any other word, no matter what language, how the word is used in the sentence tells us which meaning to use. Beyom basically means when. How it is used depends on whether it is referring back to an age or period of time or whether it is taking us forward.I really don't understand why this is so difficult other than it won't work into your theory.

quote:

---

It is so difficult because you and ringo are trying to apply a modern day usage of words to explain what 3500 year old Hebrew text says that was translated into in English.

---

Not really. The Bible doesn't say "back in the day". That is an English phrase. Our attempt is to show you that the English word day can be singular but relate to an unspecified period of time and not a single or literal day.

quote:

---

That is why I can't understand your point of view.

---

The word yom in the Genesis 1 story is a 24 hour day. I have no more to add to that. Neither story supports your theory without adding to the stories and redefining words.Genesis 2:4 is not saying that everything was done in a single day. The use of yom in that sentence is not literal. I have already shown you support for the Hebrew usage in Message 281 that is similar to our "back in the day". As I said: Same song, second verse. You haven't provided any reasoning or support for why your translation is right and the rest of the scholars are wrong.Almost 600 messages and the same discussion is just being repeated.

---

The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. --Gospel of Mary

quote:

---

Until you or someone can convince me that Genesis 1:5 does not say that a light period is day and a light period combined with a dark period is day I will keep repeating the same material as there is nothing else to state.

---

I don't have a problem with yom referring to the the light period, which is daylight and varies depending on where one lives, but it doesn't last over 24 hours. I also don't have a problem with a period of light followed by a period of dark or vice versa as referring to a day. This also is not longer than 24 hours.Now if you continue to say they are longer than 24 hours, then you still have a problem.

quote:

---

You are trying to convince me that a single day can be an extended number of days.

---

Nope, I'm telling you that the way the word is used in the sentence lends a non literal meaning to the word. It is no longer referring to a 24 hour day.

quote:

---

Why do you believe it to be literal in Genesis 1:8 and not in Genesis 2:4?

​

Your reference to Dr. Hasel's article you refered too is an article by one man and is one man's opinion.

​

It is not necessarly the opinion of scholars as you state I am saying are wrong.

---

Because of the way it is used in the sentence. We've been over that.