Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2

But I am using the Bible, just pointing out its inconsistencies, inaccuracies and outright fallacies. The explanation that I present, that the stories are simply written by different authors at different times to serve different purposes and have been edited, redacted, modified and revised is certainly as valid as the totally silly and quite frankly absurd explanation you present.Those reading the thread will be able to make their own judgment about who's explanation makes more sense and is more likely.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I have answered the question. If you're not prepared to answer the question I asked you, it's clear that you don't understand my answer.One more time, the reason for thinking that the same character, Adam, is referred to in Genesis 1 and Genesis 5 is the same as the reason for thinking that the character Jesus referred to in Matthew is the same character Jesus referred to in Mark, Luke and John. If you thought about my question honestly, you'd have the answer to your question.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Hi PD, You are trying to convince me that a single day can be an extended number of days.The Hebrew word אחד is singular and can only mean a single light period or a single light period combined with a single dark period.That is the definition given in Genesis: The light period was called day.The light period and the dark period was called day one.There were no day or days that preceded day one.You are trying to apply your present day understanding to a 3500 year old Hebrew word. Where have I re-defined יןם ?I define יןם
as a light period or a light period and a dark period.That is what God defined it as.The dictionary defines day:qs1a : the time of light between one night and the next b : daylight 1 c : daytime
2: the period of rotation of a planet (as earth) or a moon on its axis [/qs] SourceWhy 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. 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.Your source states: ביןם in Genesis 2:4 refers to the day (light period) in which God created the heaven and the earth that had ended at Genesis 1:2. The making refers to things that took place in Genesis 1:3, 4, 5.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi ringo, Well the simplest answer is that the man Jesus is mentioned in the four gospels.The man created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27 is never called Adam or anyother name.So I ask the question one more time.How do you know Genesis 5:1 refers to the account in Genesis 1:27?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi jar, I don't see any text from the Bible to support your assertions.All I see is the assertion of your opinion of the sourse of the material we have in the Bible.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

As I did point out, the Hebrew word adam is used for "man" in Genesis 1:27. Same word, same man.The same word is used in Genesis 2:7- 8 and Genesis 2:15-16 and Genesis 2:18, translated as "the man". The same word is used in Genesis 2:20 and afterward, translated as "Adam". Same word, same man. There's no reason to make a distinction between the proper noun and the generic term for "man".

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

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.

Hi ringo, What Hebrew word has the meaning of Adam?The Hebrew word אדם
means man or mankind. SourceNow if you disagree with the Hebrew lexicon write your own, or produce one that defines אדם as Adam a proper name.There was a אדם formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7.There was a אדם created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27.I ask again:How do you know Genesis 5:1 refers to the account in Genesis 1:27?There is a way to know without a doubt.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

The Hebrew word adam. It refers to man/mankind in some places, or specifically to "the man" in some places, and in other places the same word is used as the name of one man, Adam. Your own source defines adam as "3. Adam, first man". I answer again: The same way we know that the Jesus in Matthew is the same as the Jesus in Mark, Luke and John. The accounts may vary somewhat but there's no reason to suggest that they refer to different people. Jesus is sometimes called Jesus, sometimes Christ, sometimes the Son of Man, etc., all different words, but you have no problem understanding that they refer to the same person. So why would you make a fundamental distinction between the same word adam and Adam?

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Did you notice definition #3 in your source?

Hi PD, Now if I take the literal word that is written the light period mentioned in Genesis 2:4 that the heaven and the earth came into existence in lasted from the beginning whenever that was until the evening we find in Genesis 1:2. What was the duration of that evening until verse and the events iuntil verse 5 is unknown.God called that first light period and the first dark period day one. Which there was no days before that day. There is no way to determine the length of the light period and the dark period that was declared day one.This was the beginning of time as we know it that is measured by the rotation of the earth in relationship to the sun.Every day mention in the following verses is composed of almost 24 hours, and all following days until today.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Perhaps because we are not arguing over what the text itself says but rather YOUR interpretation of what the text means.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Hi jar, You are right we are not arguing over what the text itself says.Your first post to me in Message 569 the entire post said: What does that have to do with what is written in the text?In Message 582 your entire post said: A jar assertion with no evidence or argumentation.In Message 586 the entire post said: Here you say you are using the Bible when you are abusing it with your assertions that it is false.You did make one other post to ringo in Message 565 which said: Including the post I am replying to that is the extent of your contribution to this thread.Now I have affirmed throughout this thread that the text of the KJV Bible records 2 different stories. One in chapter 1:2-2:3 and another beginning at 2:4-4:24.Anything else I presented I presented text as support.You have yet to present an argument to refute anything I presented in this thread.All you have done is present your usual jar proclamations. They are fine from your pulpit but don't expect me to accept them.If you want to refute anything as per the OP please do.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Remember, my position is NOT just what jar believes.First, what you propose is absolute nonsense.Stop and think. Two creations? Genesis 2 at least Genesis 5 talking about two creations?Think.What does the physical evidence show?Now let's look at your theology?We know that the physical evidence says your idea is just nuts, how is the theology? Well there seems to be two different understandings, one that tries somehow to make the two stories mesh together, but the other very common one is that they are two stories from two different customs.From Bishop Sims Pastoral Letter of 1981:

quote:

---

But even here the distinction between religion and science is clear. In Genesis there is not one creation statement but two. They agree as to why and who, but are quite different as to how and when. The statements are set forth in tandem, chapter one of Genesis using one description of method and chapter two another. According to the first, humanity was created, male and female, after the creation of plants and animals. According to the second, man was created first, then the trees, the animals and finally the woman and not from the earth as in the first account, but from the rib of the man. Textual research shows that these two accounts are from two distinct eras, the first later in history, the second earlier.

---

My position is not unusual and is in fact very common and well supported.The question of authorship of the different stories is not new, going back at least to Abraham ibn Ezra almost a thousand years ago.So there are two essential issues I can see.One is that your concept is factually wrong, absurd and nothing but fantasy.Second, theologically there is NO support for your interpretation.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Hi ringo, It tells you adam is the transliteration of the Hebrew word אדם then lists it as the third definition.It is a mis-transliteration of the Hebrew word not a definition of the Hebrew word.The word Adam did not exist in the text until the English language began to exist and the Hebrew text was translated into English.The English word Adam is a proper name. Because adam is not the definition of the Hebrew word אדם.If it was the definition instead of a mis-transliteration then I would accept it as a proper name. The true transliteration is adm.It was applied as a proper name by the translaters even in places where האדם could not be transliterated as adm. This Hebrew word can only be transliterated as hadm.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."