TromboneChat

Quote from: MoominDave on Aug 26, 2015, 01:45AMWell, Martin wasn't wrong in suspecting that his authorship assertion would spark debate! It's a very interesting strand, not least because there's a vast amount of self-interested serious literature out there on it - and the self-interest means that we are (or at least I am) in the slightly awkward position of deciding whether to accept the analysis of those who definitely know more, but also definitely have more of an axe to grind. As when other such non-emergency situations arise in life, I shall be filing this under "Would be a really interesting future project to get to grips with the detail of this in order to give myself some confidence in my own analysis, but for now I simply note the competing theories, the reasonableness with which they are advanced, and the apparent level of independence of conclusion from starting belief in those advancing them". Please don't take that as any kind of request for cessation, it's fascinating, please don't stop - just noting that I find myself in a difficult position here - insufficiently educated and hearing competing potentially self-interested strong opinions. I intellectually deal best with this kind of position by letting it settle/stew for a while in my brain, then coming back later to develop my own approach in the knowledge that I need to bring my own approach to the table in order to engage sensibly with other approaches.

I think at this point we're ready for Genesis 3 to be dropped into the mix when you are, John. By the way, I have an MSc degree from the same university as the author of that latest link - small world. It's a pretty little campus and a quality institution.

Dave, I just wanted to have some material available for those like yourself who would want to consider this at some time.  what you are calling bias is really the same old issue of presuppositions, axioms, as we discussed earlier on the other thread.  As I said, I don't want to derail this thread.  I will post later in the week on Genesis 3.

BTW, you Brits have actually done a much better job, IMHO, in having an open door at major university posts for those who hold to an orthodox version of the Christian faith and whose scholarly work may challenge the "academic orthodoxy" of some on issues such as we have been discussing.  There are a fair number of examples of such scholars in the UK, much higher percentage-wise than at tier 1 American schools.  I applaud you Brits for having a much more open mind in your hiring practices than some US institutions.

John is enamored of the least likely scenario (single author, Moses, writing in English) but there is a point to it.

Genesis 1 and 2 have separate creation accounts and they are NOT compatible.  (different order of plants and animals, and man, different days, etc.). 

The documentary hypothesis explains this very neatly:  the redactors simply included both sources, resisting the urge to manipulate them into one coherent story.  Gen 1 is the E source (uses Elohim) and Gen 2 is the J source (uses YHWH). 

The SingleAuthor=Moses runs into immediate trouble with two contradictory accounts of creation.  Since hardly any Christians actually read the Bible, and of those few read the OT, this isn't as much trouble as it might seem.   
The resolutions I've seen are to deny there are two accounts, or deny they are contradictory, or go to some mental gymnastics to claim one creation is physical and one spiritual.  There is no shred of evidence for the third approach, it is based solely on the conviction there must be some logical reason for the contradiction. 

You can see I hold to the multiple honest authors theory. 

Quote from: timothy42b on Aug 26, 2015, 06:55AMGenesis 1 and 2 have separate creation accounts and they are NOT compatible.  (different order of plants and animals, and man, different days, etc.). 

Leaving aside the question of authorship, as the summariser of Genesis 2, I feel a little bit silly for not having explicitly noted that these accounts have at least some parallel nature. I had simply read them trustingly as complementary versions of the same narrative, focussing on different points (Ch. 1: overall layout; Ch. 2: purpose). I should read more carefully in future.

Examining the two accounts, the only discrepancy I can see that is really unarguably clear cut is that of the order of plant and human creation:
Gen 1:11 and 1:26 show clearly that the creation of plants preceded the creation of man.
Gen 2:5-7 shows clearly that the creation of man preceded the creation of plants.

How do those that proclaim 100% Biblical literalism reconcile this? For those that don't, it's easy, I'm sure - you can just take the two accounts as being more of a tale than a history, finding their relevance to everyday faithful existence to be extremely low. But for those that treat the Bible so reverently that it cannot contain falsehood - how does this work? Logically, one at least must be false.
 

Quote from: John the Theologian on Aug 25, 2015, 07:43PMThere are a number of OT scholars who would disagree with the dogmatic statement that there was absolutely no notion of an afterlife with an intermediate state in the OT until late, under Greek influence.  I would certainly agree that it's a fairly minor theme, but there are a number of hints.
That sounds like what he was saying, actually.
 
Traces or hints aren't considered what or how a culture thinks ... eh? When we're talking about cultures we have to use generalizations, and just like with statistics they may or may not apply so well to any given individual. Its makes sense to point out exceptions, perhaps, but not to protest the use of a generality because it's not universal.

Quote from: MoominDave on Aug 26, 2015, 07:50AM

Examining the two accounts, the only discrepancy I can see that is really unarguably clear cut is that of the order of plant and human creation:
Gen 1:11 and 1:26 show clearly that the creation of plants preceded the creation of man.
Gen 2:5-7 shows clearly that the creation of man preceded the creation of plants.

There's a little more, but I think you're in essence correct.  They are just two accounts of the same creation process, problematic only to the literalist.  But, extremely problematic to the literalist. 

From memory, one account has seven days, the other doesn't;  one account has humans created male and female, the other has Adam created and then later Eve.  (Other contemporary accounts list Lilith as Adam's first wife and Eve as the second, but of course you knew that.)   

So there's no reference to days in Genesis 2 (apart from the very first oddly-placed segment that finishes off the narrative of Genesis 1). Tbh, I don't see that as a problem - one specifies a timescale, the other doesn't. Doesn't imply any kind of contradiction.

The male and female thing also I can reconcile fairly straightforwardly:
Gen 1:27 -
    So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them.
Gen 2:22 -
    And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
The former passage doesn't automatically imply simultaneous creation; the meanings can be reconciled without too much brain-twisting.

But the order of plants and people - that's laid out in black and white. If one is to use these passages on their own to challenge the idea of Biblical literalism, then that idea is by far the strongest suit.

Of Lilith I knew little bar what you've just stated - just an example to throw out. Now I know slightly more, info that ties in with the simultaneous/non-simultaneous creation thing. Is there more than this?

I don't know much about Lilith either; we'd have to leave that discussion to our Jewish brethren I think.

In Genesis 1, man is created male and female, in God's image, on the 6th day.  Plants are created on the 3rd day and animals on the 5th day.

In Genesis 2, man is created on the day the Lord made the earth and the heavens, which would be the 3rd day if it's the same day referred to in Genesis 1.  Plants came before man, and animals after man.  And woman after the animals. 

None of this is a big deal if the redactors merely included the stories from two traditions, which could be the E and J  if you like the Documentary, or any multiple authors if you're not a fan.  But if Moses were the solitary author, it's hard to see why he couldn't keep this straight. 

It's not that dissimilar from the four canonical gospels, really.  These contain irreconcilable contradictions to some rather important events, but we don't worry about it, as we expect that from four different viewpoints. 

Another thought on Genesis 1 and 2 creation stories.

This is my impression, I'm not claiming it's the only way to read the text.

But it seems to me that the storytellers believed in a creation of an unchanged modern world.  Genesis describes a world already containing modern seas, valleys, mountains, forests;  modern plants and animals that we would be familiar with like cows and sheep, corn and wheat, not precursors of these that in some cases would be hard to even identify as related.  That was their worldview.

There is an obvious clash here with a historically geologic Earth, with plants and animals that had to evolve to be useful to man, with man evolving from a common ancestor with the other apes. 

Quote from: MoominDave on Aug 26, 2015, 08:57AMBut the order of plants and people - that's laid out in black and white. If one is to use these passages on their own to challenge the idea of Biblical literalism, then that idea is by far the strongest suit.


"To automatically assume that this is a contradiction portrays the author of Genesis in a pretty dim light. Was he so inept that he couldn’t keep from contradicting himself in the first two chapters or were these chapters written with two different focuses?" - quote from Tim Chaffey

Maybe we should dig a little deeper. 

Quote from: ddickerson on Aug 26, 2015, 02:30PMMaybe we should dig a little deeper.
You won't learn anything by digging though, if you dig like a miner.
 
Miner's dig for specific substances and filter out the rest of what's there. If you want to learn about what's really there that's obviously not gonna help you. It will help you get at the specific substance you're after though ... even if you have to settle for pyrite.

Quote from: timothy42b on Aug 26, 2015, 10:11AMI don't know much about Lilith either; we'd have to leave that discussion to our Jewish brethren I think.

In Genesis 1, man is created male and female, in God's image, on the 6th day.  Plants are created on the 3rd day and animals on the 5th day.

In Genesis 2, man is created on the day the Lord made the earth and the heavens, which would be the 3rd day if it's the same day referred to in Genesis 1.  Plants came before man, and animals after man.  And woman after the animals. 

None of this is a big deal if the redactors merely included the stories from two traditions, which could be the E and J  if you like the Documentary, or any multiple authors if you're not a fan.  But if Moses were the solitary author, it's hard to see why he couldn't keep this straight. 

It's not that dissimilar from the four canonical gospels, really.  These contain irreconcilable contradictions to some rather important events, but we don't worry about it, as we expect that from four different viewpoints. 

I'm not really a literalist but I can do a reasonable impression.

But I don't think the actual text supports the view that it is a second creation account and so it doesn't present problems about 2 contradictory accounts.  At least it can be easily read in a way that doesn't have those problems.  So given a choice between reading the text in a way that makes sense of the text and doesn't have contradictions; or a way that does have contradictions I'm going to go with the reading that makes sense and doesn't have contradictions, even if it is not the most obvious reading.

So what the text says and my reading of it is:
- the heavens and the earth were created in verse 1 not day 3. So its specified in a summary statement.
- 2:4 which refers to the day when the heavens and earth were made seems to me to be a summary statement, just like in ch 1, either of what has happened in ch1, or of what is to come.  
- "in the day" sounds more like a synonym for "when it happened" but that's not very literal is it, sorry.\
- 2:1-4 sums up the creations of the heaven and the earth and we move on to Adam.
- v 5 changes to specifying details.  So it would not be a part of the the same statement as v4 which is a summary.
 - and the context is now Adam and Eve and their environment
- there wasn't any plants because it hadn't rained yet and there was no-one to cultivate them.  This is not a statement about creation. Its just farming101.  The text doesn't say that plants weren't created yet, it says that they hadn't grown there yet.    
- And then we have the details of Adam and Eve's creation; God growing the garden for them to live in a look after - with water for it.

So not totally literal but I think it makes sense of the text and avoids contradictions.

Quote from: timothy42b on Aug 26, 2015, 10:11AMI don't know much about Lilith either; we'd have to leave that discussion to our Jewish brethren I think.

In Genesis 1, man is created male and female, in God's image, on the 6th day.  Plants are created on the 3rd day and animals on the 5th day.

In Genesis 2, man is created on the day the Lord made the earth and the heavens, which would be the 3rd day if it's the same day referred to in Genesis 1.  Plants came before man, and animals after man.  And woman after the animals. 

None of this is a big deal if the redactors merely included the stories from two traditions, which could be the E and J  if you like the Documentary, or any multiple authors if you're not a fan.  But if Moses were the solitary author, it's hard to see why he couldn't keep this straight. 

It's not that dissimilar from the four canonical gospels, really.  These contain irreconcilable contradictions to some rather important events, but we don't worry about it, as we expect that from four different viewpoints. 

The interpretation of v. 5 needs a few more nuances and amplifications on what Martin has said.  Let me quote from D. Alexander again: "The term 'land' can refer to the whole earth, to dry land or to a specific region.  To show the continuity with chapter 1 and the mention of rain, the ESV rendering "land" is best.  The location of this land is some unnamed place, just as the rainy season was about to begin, and thus when the ground was still dry, and without any bush of the field.  These conditions prevailed before the creation of man, suggesting that the lack of growth was related to the absence of a man to irrigate the land, which would be the normal way in dry conditions to bring about growth."

This interpretation has the advantage of not assuming that the final author/editor whoever he was, wasn't such a dimwit as to put something blatantly contradictory so close together as DD has suggested.  It also fits with the the emphasis on the importance of the human in this chapter, especially as related to agriculture, as v. 9 suggests.  It's not even necessary to insist on the waiting for irrigation since the emphasis in this chapter is on edible plants and human agriculture.  It's actually being overly literal to interpret v. 5 as saying no plants, period, were created until after humans were around.

In other words the text is not speaking about when the first plants were created, but rather when the first cultivated plants were available for humans to work and uses for food. This is not only a plausible interpretation, but also makes sense in the context.

It also shows why, historically, orthodox Christian, who have obviously noticed the different emphases of chapter 1 and chapter 2, have not automatically jumped, to the, false in my opinion, conclusion that there is a blatant contradiction between the 2.  They could do that even without knowing the breadth of meaning of the Heb. word for land.

Quote from: timothy42b on Aug 26, 2015, 11:36AMAnother thought on Genesis 1 and 2 creation stories.

This is my impression, I'm not claiming it's the only way to read the text.

But it seems to me that the storytellers believed in a creation of an unchanged modern world.  Genesis describes a world already containing modern seas, valleys, mountains, forests;  modern plants and animals that we would be familiar with like cows and sheep, corn and wheat, not precursors of these that in some cases would be hard to even identify as related.  That was their worldview.

There is an obvious clash here with a historically geologic Earth, with plants and animals that had to evolve to be useful to man, with man evolving from a common ancestor with the other apes. 

Tim

I agree that the author most likely thought that the world was created pretty much like it was when they were writing, animals too.  But I don't think that's a problem because the text doesn't tell how God got it to that stage - it doesn't seem to be the point of the passage.

Obviously I'm not reading the days in Genesis 1 as consecutive 24 hour days - so will probably get a letter in the mail revoking my membership of the literalists club.

One thing I'm curious about.  Evening to morning donesn't sound like a whole day does it.  It sounds like just the dark part.  Anyone got any ideas on why that phrase is used, and if it does refer to a solar day, why?  I suppose it could be the whole day if evening started at mid-day and morning finished at mid-day, but is that right?

This site http://www.peterwallace.org/old/essays/evening.htm has a list of usages of the expression and claims that its not used anywhere else to represent a whole day.  But I don't know if this is understanding supported by "scholars".  I've just noticed he'd a Prezzy, wo he must be good.  Right John?

"When we examine the Hebrew Scriptures we discover that the language of "evening and morning" is generally used to describe the period from the cessation of labor before sunset until the renewal of labor after sunrise. Likewise, the language of "morning and evening" refers either to the specific times of the daily sacrifices, or to the events of the daylight hours. Never is the language of morning and evening (or evening and morning) used to refer to a literal 24-hour day."

Quote from: drizabone on Aug 26, 2015, 05:28PM==

One thing I'm curious about.  Evening to morning donesn't sound like a whole day does it. ==="

Because, like we're used to, God did a bunch of stuff during the day and then "there was evening, and there was morning..." and he did a bunch more stuff the next day.

You guys don't expect God to have worked in the dark, do you? The light bulb hadn't even been invented yet, after all ... eh!?
 
 

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Aug 26, 2015, 06:15PMYou guys don't expect God to have worked in the dark, do you? The light bulb hadn't even been invented yet, after all ... eh!?
 
 

Interestingly, Islam denies the whole 'rest' thing with God. They don't buy into God needing to rest.

Quote from: HeRoze on Aug 26, 2015, 06:07PMBecause, like we're used to, God did a bunch of stuff during the day and then "there was evening, and there was morning..." and he did a bunch more stuff the next day.

The penny drops, that makes sense, I just never thought of the evening and morning happening after God did his stuff.

Quote from: drizabone on Aug 26, 2015, 05:28PMTim

I agree that the author most likely thought that the world was created pretty much like it was when they were writing, animals too.  But I don't think that's a problem because the text doesn't tell how God got it to that stage - it doesn't seem to be the point of the passage.

Obviously I'm not reading the days in Genesis 1 as consecutive 24 hour days - so will probably get a letter in the mail revoking my membership of the literalists club.

One thing I'm curious about.  Evening to morning donesn't sound like a whole day does it.  It sounds like just the dark part.  Anyone got any ideas on why that phrase is used, and if it does refer to a solar day, why?  I suppose it could be the whole day if evening started at mid-day and morning finished at mid-day, but is that right?

This site http://www.peterwallace.org/old/essays/evening.htm has a list of usages of the expression and claims that its not used anywhere else to represent a whole day.  But I don't know if this is understanding supported by "scholars".  I've just noticed he'd a Prezzy, wo he must be good.  Right John?

"When we examine the Hebrew Scriptures we discover that the language of "evening and morning" is generally used to describe the period from the cessation of labor before sunset until the renewal of labor after sunrise. Likewise, the language of "morning and evening" refers either to the specific times of the daily sacrifices, or to the events of the daylight hours. Never is the language of morning and evening (or evening and morning) used to refer to a literal 24-hour day."

Although, Peter Wallace and I aren't close friends and haven't actually met, we've had a few conversations over the phone.  He's a member of my denomination, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, although a member of a different presbytery than I am.  He's a respected scholar and, like me, is a church historian by training-- PhD, Notre Dame. He serves as a pastor of local church and part-time academician.  His academic interests range rather widely.

Quote from: HeRoze on Aug 26, 2015, 06:17PMInterestingly, Islam denies the whole 'rest' thing with God. They don't buy into God needing to rest.
Makes more sense, although I expect a lot of Christians believe God "rested" as an example to humans.
 
The problem with that idea is that the Bible should have said something about sleeping in on Saturday too though.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Aug 26, 2015, 04:10PM
It also shows why, historically, orthodox Christian, who have obviously noticed the different emphases of chapter 1 and chapter 2, have not automatically jumped, to the, false in my opinion, conclusion that there is a blatant contradiction between the 2.  They could do that even without knowing the breadth of meaning of the Heb. word for land.

I bolded part of your sentence. 

I don't think it is obvious at all.  I have never run into anyone who noticed without it being pointed out.  Outside of seminarians, of course. 

Let me try to sum your logic.

We know absolutely for sure that one person wrote both accounts.

We know absolutely for sure that he was too smart to not notice.

Therefore we know absolutely for sure there is no real contradiction - any apparent contradiction is just an indication we need to dig deeper. 

Therefore we can ignore large portions of what the text says, because it really must mean something other than what it says. 

I guess I should throw in:  these two stories survived intact for more than a thousand years before being written down, and then were written down and transmitted accurately for at least an additional couple thousand years (I'm dating the redaction period to 930 BC from memory, so I might be a bit off) so now we can dig deeper into the real meaning of the modern English translation. 

Or, we could realize there is a lot of evidence for multiple authors, and despite some dissent it's been the majority opinion with Biblical scholars for some time.  And that solves all the problems without mental gymnastics. 

Quote from: drizabone on Aug 26, 2015, 03:05PMI'm not really a literalist but I can do a reasonable impression.

  
No, you can't.  Reasonable and literal do not go together.  You've shown yourself to be reasonable, therefore it follows you can't really do literal!

QuoteBut I don't think the actual text supports the view that it is a second creation account and so it doesn't present problems about 2 contradictory accounts.  At least it can be easily read in a way that doesn't have those problems.
I think you can see that you have to work a little hard to not take it as a second creation account.  There are other interpretations, such as considering Gen 1 to be a physical creation and Gen 2 to be a spiritual or allegorical one.  The problem I have is that the text sure seems to say both are creation accounts.

There is a similar problem with the Matthew and Luke geneologies.  They do not match.  The standard answer is that one is the ancestry of Joseph and the other that of Mary.  While that's possible, the text clearly says both are the lineage of Joseph.  So how do you ignore that part of the text but consider the rest of the passage reliable? 

Funny how the same ones who complain about trolling in their own threads of religion seem to have no issue doing it themselves in other's.


Tim, everyone gets your point. You don't like literalists and you think of the bible as teachings cobbled together and passed down from people to people over the years with distortions, insertions, and deletions all along the way. There are consistent interpretations of both the OT and NT using a literal approach. Is there a point to your ramblings here? You don't seem to be adding anything, just attacking.

Bob, request you actually read Genesis then join the thread already in progress.

Quote from: timothy42b on Aug 27, 2015, 06:55AMBob, request you actually read Genesis then join the thread already in progress.
Again, nothing more than more attacks. Is there a point to your tangent here?

A word that I find interesting in these accounts is "water". Or "waters", etc.

Genesis 1:2
2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Genesis 1:6-10
6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 2, interestingly, does not talk about waters at all in this fashion.

John mentioned the Enuma Elish earlier, the Babylonian creation story. It's not a text I have any familiarity with, but there is some explication of it here. Although the stories are different, this, like the Genesis 1 account, opens the action with waters being disturbed.

I see also that Ancient Egyptian creation stories arise out of water similarly.

Do we see a common idea far back in antiquity between these, or is this idea likely to have arisen independently several times?

Another point that gets everybody energized is the use of the term "according to their kind(s)"'

Gen 1:20 ESV
And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds[g] fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

Quote from: MoominDave on Aug 27, 2015, 07:25AMA word that I find interesting in these accounts is "water". Or "waters", etc.

Genesis 1:2
2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Genesis 1:6-10
6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 2, interestingly, does not talk about waters at all in this fashion.

John mentioned the Enuma Elish earlier, the Babylonian creation story. It's not a text I have any familiarity with, but there is some explication of it here. Although the stories are different, this, like the Genesis 1 account, opens the action with waters being disturbed.

I see also that Ancient Egyptian creation stories arise out of water similarly.

Do we see a common idea far back in antiquity between these, or is this idea likely to have arisen independently several times?



My uneducated thoughts about the description beginning with a mass of water, is that our planet probably started out as a mass that was totally immersed underwater, and through time, the waters and land became separated like the creation story explains.


Aren't there a lot of planets out there now that we think has no land mass at this time? I guess I could google it before I pose this question and let Wikipedia settle it.

Quote from: ddickerson on Aug 27, 2015, 07:55AMAnother point that gets everybody energized is the use of the term "according to their kind(s)"'



THAT could easily be a 100 page sidetrack! 

What I think it means is that like I said ealier, the writers (I know they didn't write, consider it shorthand) had a worldview that everything was created in an essentially modern form. 

For Dave's question on the water imagery, I don't know, I speculate maybe it has to do with a womb and birth metaphor. 

Quote from: timothy42b on Aug 27, 2015, 09:54AMTHAT could easily be a 100 page sidetrack! 

What I think it means is that like I said ealier, the writers (I know they didn't write, consider it shorthand) had a worldview that everything was created in an essentially modern form. 

For Dave's question on the water imagery, I don't know, I speculate maybe it has to do with a womb and birth metaphor. 

Everything was created in an essentially modern form, as opposed to evolution over millions of years. Right?

I guess God creating Man also dispels evolution of man.

Whoever's up is gonna need to post the next summary/commentary soon, or this is gonna turn into an evolution thread.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Aug 27, 2015, 10:23AMWhoever's up is gonna need to post the next summary/commentary soon, or this is gonna turn into an evolution thread.

Yes, I will refrain from going there unless forced.  My comment was intended to relate to the worldview of the people living at the time, who did not know about tectonic plates, geological processes, etc., but were very observant about their own local environment.  I think we need to interpret Genesis in that light, and not try to force some science into it. 

And yet it is these verses in Genesis that gets people labeled 'New Earthers, so, while we're in this section, it's applicable to discuss this topic.

Quote from: ddickerson on Aug 27, 2015, 11:15AMAnd yet it is these verses in Genesis that gets people labeled 'New Earthers, so, while we're in this section, it's applicable to discuss this topic.

Well, you're right, but it's risky.  Maybe if we just avoid the complications of those "kinds."

It seems to me that in Genesis 1, God creates mankind.  There isn't a lot of detail.  An Old Earth Creationist could easily take that to mean God used natural processes over millions of years.  It's the same miracle either way.

But Genesis 2 is pretty specific.  God made a modern man out of dirt-with-the-appearance-of-age, intact, adult, and ready to procreate.  There is no room for a million years of ancestry, no room for Australopithecus, Homo habilus, or any of the other fossil finds.  (I didn't google, just grabbed a couple names out of memory, sorry if they're bad examples.)  And then as an afterthought He makes women, can't have man getting bored after all.  (Bible written by males, maybe?) 

I'm up next on Genesis 3, but I won't be posting on it until later today.  Just hold on guys.  I'm not going to be focusing on creation/evolution issues, so hopefully we won't be sidetracked on that.

Quote from: timothy42b on Aug 27, 2015, 12:04PMWell, you're right, but it's risky.  Maybe if we just avoid the complications of those "kinds."

It seems to me that in Genesis 1, God creates mankind.  There isn't a lot of detail.  An Old Earth Creationist could easily take that to mean God used natural processes over millions of years.  It's the same miracle either way.

But Genesis 2 is pretty specific.  God made a modern man out of dirt-with-the-appearance-of-age, intact, adult, and ready to procreate.  There is no room for a million years of ancestry, no room for Australopithecus, Homo habilus, or any of the other fossil finds.  (I didn't google, just grabbed a couple names out of memory, sorry if they're bad examples.)  And then as an afterthought He makes women, can't have man getting bored after all.  (Bible written by males, maybe?) 

As an afterthought? You think He didn't plan to make Adam a partner?

Quote from: ddickerson on Aug 27, 2015, 12:33PMAs an afterthought? You think He didn't plan to make Adam a partner?

Let's read the text:
Quote18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man[c] there was not found a helper as his partner. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

That certainly seems like He made man, realized man would be lonely, made him a bunch of pets, that didn't work out so well, finally he made woman to be a helper.  It shows a clear process of God revising and tweaking his design over time.  Which, okay, an omniscient God wouldn't have needed to do, but the lesson here is that this was the image of God that the writers had - a very human one. 

Quote from: timothy42b on Aug 27, 2015, 12:43PMLet's read the text:.

That certainly seems like He made man, realized man would be lonely, made him a bunch of pets, that didn't work out so well, finally he made woman to be a helper.  It shows a clear process of God revising and tweaking his design over time.  Which, okay, an omniscient God wouldn't have needed to do, but the lesson here is that this was the image of God that the writers had - a very human one. 

Where do you get the idea that He didn't plan it all along?


Gen 1:27 ESV
So God created man in his own image,
male and female he created them.

    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them.

Quote from: ddickerson on Aug 27, 2015, 10:11AMEverything was created in an essentially modern form, as opposed to evolution over millions of years. Right?

I guess God creating Man also dispels evolution of man.

Not necessarily, the text just tells about the end result, there's nothing about the process.  Although Adam and Eve might be different, they're individuals, not species/kinds that are specified in chapter 1, so Adam and Eve may been specially created, even though "humans" evolved. 

Notice that the text talks about God making "the man" in chapter 2 not "man".  The difference is that chapter 2 is dealing with individuals.  Just like ch 2 isn't talking about the creation of plants in general but about them growing in a particular location.  Sure it takes more "work" to notice these things, but that doesn't mean that the "no work" option gives the right answer.

the next chapter is still evolving.



 

Quote from: timothy42b on Aug 27, 2015, 12:43PMLet's read the text:.

That certainly seems like He made man, realized man would be lonely, made him a bunch of pets, that didn't work out so well, finally he made woman to be a helper.  It shows a clear process of God revising and tweaking his design over time.  Which, okay, an omniscient God wouldn't have needed to do, but the lesson here is that this was the image of God that the writers had - a very human one. 

I've never thought that the process God went through to get Adam a "helper" was to illustrate God's human-ness, but talk about proper relationships between man and the rest of creation.  I guess it shows how much we read our preconceptions into the text without realising it.

Brief notes on Genesis 3: 1-24

There is so much that could be said about this passage, so I will limit myself to some basic points.

First a basic outline
3:1—introducing the serpent
3:1b-5—the serpent and Eve converse
3:6-7—the human pair eat the fruit
3: 8-13—the human pair attempt to hide from God
3: 14-19- God pronounces His sentence
   3: 14-15—on the serpent
   3: 16—on the woman
   3: 17-19—on the man
3: 20-21—Adam and Eve receive God’s mercy
3: 22-24—God expels Adam and Eve from the garden

Basic notes
1.   The serpent shows up suddenly and without explanation—the definite article—the Serpent is used, showing that this isn’t just an ordinary serpent, but a distinct one.  Since other than Balaam’s talking donkey, animals don’t speak with humans in the biblical text, this gives us hints that some sort of evil power is using the serpent as a mouthpiece.

2.   The serpent’s modus operandi is to cast doubt on the veracity of what God has said.

3.   The serpent disappears after the contradicting the divine statement and the only other mention of the serpent is in the curses on him.  The serpents lack of use of the divine name and only the generic word for deity in a chapter that clearly uses the divine name (Yahweh, usually translated as LORD) elsewhere may be significant, but we can’t be certain.

4.   The woman seems to embellish the divine command with the addition of the phrase about touching it which does not appear in the divine prohibition of Genesis 2: 17.

5.   The serpent’s claim implies that not only is God not telling the couple the truth, but that He is keeping something from them—see v. 4.

6.   The woman focuses on the desirability of the fruit to the eye as well as to the implication that eating would gain something for her and her husband and thus eats.  The man, who enters the picture here for the first time is only said to have eaten with her.

7.   There were obvious results, but not exactly as the serpent had suggested or what the couple seemed to have expected.  Instead what they experienced was an awareness of their nakedness and they sought to address this with makeshift coverings.

8.   When God appeared to engage in some sort of relational fellowship with the couple—the text seems to imply that this was done at a regular time and place—the couple was afraid and attempted to hide, the man, who seems to be the responsible spokesman here, only mentions the results of their eating the from the forbidden tree—unspecified, BTW, and nowhere said to be an apple  -- and not the actions that lead to the result or anything about the conversation with the serpent.

9.   God, engages in cross examination and the couple comes up with excuses—the man says that the woman tricked him, while the woman blames the deceit of the serpent.

10.   The serpent is cursed, but the curse goes beyond simply a change in locomotion, but speaks of offspring or seed—a word that can be translated in Hebrew as well as English as a singular, plural or a collective—only the context finally tells which—which will be have enmity with the offspring of the woman. 

11.   The end result of this struggle will be different for each.  The seed of the woman will have his heel bruised or crushed in some translations while the head of the serpent will be bruised or crushed.  The difference between a head and heel seems to be significant in the head wounds are much more serious and often fatal than heel wounds.

12.   The woman is promised pain in childbearing and a change in her relationship with her husband.

13.   The man, Adam, is promised pain in his agricultural pursuits and thus his fulfilling the divine mandate given to him in 1: 28-29 has just become immensely more difficult.

14.   The woman is given a name and God makes them suitable clothing so that the apparent shame that they felt over their nakedness would be mitigated.

15.   The couple is now said to have known good and evil.  This is usually taken in the experiential sense.  Previously their only understanding of good and evil was in the context of the divine command.  Now, however, eating the forbidden fruit means that they experience the shame and judgment that comes from experiencing good and evil from the “wrong” side.

16.   The divine conversation—the partners are not specified, some Christians seeing a Trinitarian reference here, but this is not certain—recognizes that eating of the tree of life would permanently give them an eternal life in an undesirable condition, so they are driven out.  Most historic Christians has seen this as an act of grace, to preserve humanity in a redeemable, rather than a permanently condemned state.

Additional comments
1.    This is the passage that is traditionally called the Fall and the origins of human evil in the world.  Whether it refers to other forms of evil entering the world is a debated points among traditional Christians.

2.   No time markers are hinted at all in the text as how long the couple would have lived in Edenic bliss and any suggestions are pure speculation unhinged from the text.

3.   Many historic Christian, including me, argue that the situation in Eden was one of a trial period of some sort with implications for others than themselves.  The reasons are as follows
      a. One tree has been singled out with a divine prohibition
      b.The curse includes a discussion of offspring in a book that is full of genealogies and concern with offspring.  The term offspring should be seen as singular here because two singular   pronouns are in Hebrew rather than plural pronouns.
      c.There a several small ironic wordplays in the Hebrew which are only partially shown in English—the serpent promises that they their eyes will be opened and they will know something, but the text says that what they seemed to come to understand is that they are naked, which presumably they already knew, but now must understand in a different sense.  A and E were told to be fruitful and multiply, but now E’s pain is multiplied.  Procreation now is no longer simply a blessing, some a task linked with pain.  A few others are there as well.
     d.The death that A and E had been promised "kicked" in when they were denied access to the Tree of Life, but while we can't absolutely say that this included "spiritual" death, the context points in that direction with its emphasis on the breach of fellowship between God and humanity, the kicking out of the garden, with the cutting of of access to the Tree of Life, the promise of a struggle between the 2 offsrpings, etc.  These certainly point in a further direction than the "mere" loss of physical life that being cut off from the Tree of life would entail.
      e. The promise of an offspring who will bruise the serpent sends out strong hints that God has plans to do something the reverse what A and E have injected into the human condition with its attendant serious problems.  The use of singular pronouns for this offspring as noted above has lead historic Christian interpreters to call 3:15, the protoevangelium, of the first mention of the gospel, albeit in a very condensed form.  I personally, find great hope in that promise.

4.   The mention of the woman’s desire in v. 16 has often been seen as referring to a man domineering over the woman.  This is possible, but another option is also possible, because the Heb. word translated rule over does not convey the negative associations of ‘dominate” and the word for desire is used only one other time in the OT and seems to be a neutral word for craving, with the specific craving define by the context.  The end result of this is that it is speaking to power struggles within marriage and competition for control, rather than anything specifically sexual.


I realize that this post is probably much longer than many of you are ready for and I have left many questions unanswered.  I have specifically not addressed the question of is this historical, allegorical, historical with poetic language, etc. because so much of the discussion is so presupposition loaded.  This text is also referenced further on the Bible, especially by Paul in Romans 5 as well as the book of Revelation.  As interesting as it would be to pursue that, I have refrained.

I anyone wants to read a fine, full exposition of Genesis 1-4 that is conservative, but not ultra-literalistic, while still arguing for a historical Adam and Eve and a real “Fall” in history, I would commend Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary by C. John Collins.  Dr. Collins was an MIT trained scientist before he turned his hand to Biblical studies.

Here’s a link:

   
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-1-4-Linguistic-Theological-Commentary/dp/0875526195

So in chapter 2 God said "16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat[d] of it you shall surely die.” 

They did eat but they didn't die that day! Why not?

Quote from: drizabone on Aug 27, 2015, 09:01PMSo in chapter 2 God said "16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat[d] of it you shall surely die.” 

They did eat but they didn't die that day! Why not?

Martin, I edited my post a bit and hopefully started to answer that.  However, a fuller answer is that by being cut off to access to the Tree of Life, which seems to have had some sort of sacramental qualities, at least that't the term most biblical scholars use, the death process was unleashed in them and would run it's course.  Hence they "died" in that they no longer had the assurance of continued immortality apart from divine mercy.  They no longer had access to the divine gift that would qualify them for some sort of immortal existence.  The statement in v. 22 points in this direction and the ouster from the garden is an act of divine mercy, I believe, so that they won't be confirmed in a "fallen" state, rather than being confirmed in a pure state, which I believe, although not explicitly stated in this text-- other texts come into play here as well-- would have meant that confirmation in a pure state. I believe that the text points in the direction of both physical and spiritual death, although these 2 can't be completely separated and both are touched on somewhat in the text, I believe.

Cutoff from the Tree of Life:

Can you imagine how much evil would be present in the world today, if everyone, evil doers especially, have never died, but still living among us?

It seems to me that God did us an extreme favor.

Fruit of knowledge:
Has it ever occurred to anyone, that the more advanced our knowledge becomes, the more evil we're able to come up with? Sure, we always create new knowledge in the hope of creating a better life, but with it, comes extreme evil. Do you think that God knew we would have been better off if they hadn't eaten the forbidden fruit?

Quote from: ddickerson on Aug 27, 2015, 09:35PMCutoff from the Tree of Life:

Can you imagine how much evil would be present in the world today, if everyone, evil doers especially, have never died, but still living among us?

It seems to me that God did us an extreme favor.

Fruit of knowledge:
Has it ever occurred to anyone, that the more advanced our knowledge becomes, the more evil we're able to come up with? Sure, we always create new knowledge in the hope of creating a better life, but with it, comes extreme evil. Do you think that God knew we would have been better off if they hadn't eaten the forbidden fruit?
One of my favorite questions. 

Is God a temporal being as is man?  If God is not temporal, an omniscient, omnipotent being had to know all possible outcomes, right?  Leads to why would it be allowed, what is the plan, is God also omni-benevolent, etc...

If God is temporal, that is a limitation on the powers, right?  What other limitations are there?  I find this an interesting slippery slope in the conception of what God is.

Cheers,
Andy

Quote from: drizabone on Aug 27, 2015, 09:01PMSo in chapter 2 God said "16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat[d] of it you shall surely die.” 

They did eat but they didn't die that day! Why not?

Perhaps the word is metaphorical rather than physical or spiritual.

The more conservative branches insist there was no physical death before the Fall.  There are several problems with that, among them animals designed with carnivore digestive systems, and the fact that physical death did NOT end with the crucifixion; if you believe in substitutional atonement that should have made us all immortal again.  Or maybe it did, just none of us believe enough.

Of course when we get to Noah we find that even though death was present, meat eating did not occur until after the flood.   

John points out a possible hint of a future gospel, which is an interesting idea.  I would think most kids in Sunday School got the impression that Adam's sin doomed all of humanity until Jesus came along, and that this concept has been part of the religion from the beginning.  In fact it is very very hard to read that into the OT unless you start with that idea.

I've always thought Eve got a bad rap.  God never ordered her not to eat.  She got it second hand from Adam, and what wife trusts her husband to get the story straight?   

Quote from: ddickerson on Aug 27, 2015, 09:35PMCutoff from the Tree of Life ...
Reply moved to Religion Matters: Take 3.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Aug 27, 2015, 08:39PMBrief notes on Genesis 3: 1-24

Good stuff John. I don't think I'm going to get time to give these the attention they deserve before I go away for the long weekend later this afternoon - let's see where you're all up to when I get back on Monday.

For info, the next few chapters are currently allocated as:
Genesis 4: drizabone
Genesis 5: MoominDave
Genesis 6: ??? - stake your claim...
Genesis 7: MoominDave
Genesis 8 onwards: ???

By the by, I had forgotten that there's a time limit on how long one can edit past posts for - the first post in this thread has now passed this limit, and so I can't currently add summary links to the bottom of it as they are posted. I've contacted Da Management to see if there's any way around this.

Quote from: timothy42b on Aug 28, 2015, 05:54AMI've always thought Eve got a bad rap.  God never ordered her not to eat.  She got it second hand from Adam, and what wife trusts her husband to get the story straight?   

A bit out of the ambit of Biblical exegesis, but medieval rabbinical text and commentary said that Adam's first companion/helper was Lilith. She would not submit to Adam's rule, and went somewhere else. After that, there was the whole rib thing, and Eve was cast as Adam's dutiful helpmeet.

Yet further off topic, I've heard Israelis call each other "Adam" in the same context where English speakers would call each other "man." That's enough reason for me to stay out of Biblical discussion: I don't speak or read the antique Hebrew of the original OT. That hasn't stopped other people from making up ungrammatical macaroni words like "baramin" to wedge "created kinds" into US public school biology classrooms.

ciao, all

Quote from: Bruce the budgie on Aug 28, 2015, 09:03AMA bit out of the ambit of Biblical exegesis, but medieval rabbinical text and commentary said that Adam's first companion/helper was Lilith. She would not submit to Adam's rule, and went somewhere else. After that, there was the whole rib thing, and Eve was cast as Adam's dutiful helpmeet.

Yet further off topic, I've heard Israelis call each other "Adam" in the same context where English speakers would call each other "man." That's enough reason for me to stay out of Biblical discussion: I don't speak or read the antique Hebrew of the original OT. That hasn't stopped other people from making up ungrammatical macaroni words like "baramin" to wedge "created kinds" into US public school biology classrooms.

ciao, all

I don't know anything about medieval Jewish exegesis, but the generic Hebrew word for man is indeed Adam.

Quote from: ddickerson on Aug 27, 2015, 09:35PM<snip>
Fruit of knowledge:
Has it ever occurred to anyone, that the more advanced our knowledge becomes, the more evil we're able to come up with? Sure, we always create new knowledge in the hope of creating a better life, but with it, comes extreme evil. Do you think that God knew we would have been better off if they hadn't eaten the forbidden fruit?

Arrgh - I wasn't going to get involved so don't expect much comment from me....

DDickerson:  Please don't fall into the same trap so many seem to.  The "Tree of Knowledge" was properly called "The Tree of Knowledge of GOOD and EVIL" - it wasn't about knowledge in general, but the disparate ideas of good and evil. 

I would posit that knowledge in and of itself is neither good nor evil, it just "is".  The ONE bit of knowledge that causes problems is the ability to distinguish between good and evil, which in turn gives people the ability to choose one or the other option.  Without the opportunity to know of the existence of evil, one cannot choose it, or good for that matter.  By making the choice to eat of the fruit of that particular tree, Adam (I consider he was the responsible party, Eve was deceived, possibly because Adam had not transmitted God's instructions fully to her, but Adam then CHOSE) introduced sin into the world and the rest is history