Literal Creation Story

As already stated --

Chapter 1 provides a "Chronology" - it gives a sequence WITHIN a timeline. Chapter's two does not.

Only ONE of them is giving a "chronology" - a specific and explicit timeline.

There is no "Bible is wrong" answer here.

The Chronology provides information that Chapter 2 does not.

Chapter 2 provides information that the Chronology does not.

When we compare them - we observe that Chapter 2 focuses primarily on day 6 but does not limit itself to JUST that part of the Genesis account.

Trying to make chapter 2 "a mindless repeat of chapter 1" always fails - and so some assume that it must not know about chapter 1. But simply repeating chapter 1 in chapter 2 - is pointless anyway. Why insist on it?

As already stated - chapter 2 shows information about the cause and reasoning for the institution of marriage. Chapter 1-2:3 shows the cause and reasoning for mans worship of his creator and the institution of the holy 7th day.

Just the "details" in the text. No need to play "dodge ball with them" as Carson suggests.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Seems like the answer is Chapter 1 is before 2 so 1 is to be taken literally first and then 2 is to be showhorned in to one.

Bob's words about two not being a repeat of 1 are nice and all of us Catholics would agree that God has something more to say in 2 or he wouldn't have had it placed in the Bible, but to dismiss the chronology as he does is telling of his true openness to the word of God. To us Catholics both Chronologies are important in the context in which they were intended.

Blessings

 

I love it how you make stuff up, Bob. Please quote a Catholic who has "insisted" on anything at all resembling this nonsense you just wrote. Oh please oh please?!

 

If you will forgive me for interrupting this pleasant and lightsome exchange, it should perhaps be said that the verbs in Genesis 2:8 and 19 are both in the past completed tense, which means that the most understandable interpretation/translation is to use 'had....'. "Now the Lord God HAD planted a garden in the east..." and "Now the Lord God HAD formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field..."

Please note the similar construction, indicating that 'by now' in the narrative' it had already completed happening. There is no disagreement between Chapters 1 and 2 in the Hebrew.

Research is a wonderful thing. I highly recommend it.

 

Helen,

You noticed how jovial this "dialogue" is too?

Just wondering on your thoughts on this: Why do so many English translations, including the KJV, translated it so differently, thus causing the confusion?

 

Yes, research is good. I just went through a half dozen Bibles including the KJV. Not one has the word had in v. 19. Every one says "the Lord God formed" and then they are presented to Adam apparently as they are formed. So it seems you have not made much of a point Helen. Seems more likely a bad translation trying to get around this "problem" that you guys will find to be a contradiction with your literal every time exegesis.

Blessigs

 

You failed to note the NIV and Dhouay Rheims (how ironic).

ACtually that is not what it says at all. That is what you would like for it to say. It does not connect the forming and the presenting in such a manner at all. It merely affirms that they were created by God and brought to Adam by God.

This is only confusing if you fail to read the context. Gen 1 makes it clear that man was created after animals, so there is no reason to suggest any different. In Gen 2, the author is pointing out that the God who formed the animals brought them to Adam.

The English versions are not inaccurate, though with the exception of the NIV, they are imprecise. To say that God "formed the animals" is a past tense. It does not say when in the past. You are making that part up to fit your own mind. Gen 1 tells us when in the past and there is no reason to contradict it.

 

Thank you, Pastor Larry.

Grace Saves, the confusion comes for two reasons:

1. Translators will often use the most simple translation, and the simple past is the most simple translation here, even though the context and the Hebrew verb itself require something a little different.

2. The English language changes. It is a 'living' language and thus the understandings of words change, too.

It might also be mentioned that many translations will use what previoius translations have used as a matter of tradition. This can be good...or bad.

What puzzles me about the folks who insist that Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other is that they are, by implication, stating that the Jews have historically been too stupid to notice that! If there is ANY group of the human race which is known for its intelligence, it would be the Jews, I think. So rather than insult them by implication, it is probably best to try to find out what they considered it to mean.

The verb and the context tell us what we need to know there.

 

It is so ironic, that a group (such as Roman Catholics) who insist on actual transubstantiation and Peter being the rock on which the Church is built, simply because of a questionable literal interpretation, can no longer accept the simple explanation that GOD created everything in one week and rested on the seventh day.

How many times does the Bible say that GOD created in 6 days and then rested?

How many times does the Bible say wine will become blood?

 

Yes but that is "only the Bible" and as we have seen here - it is "easy to ignore".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, using just the details in the text of Chapter 2, does Chapter 2 tell us that God created man or the animals first? </font>[/QUOTE]Details - Chapter 2 does not give a Chronology.

Chapter 1 does. Chapter one is "explicit" showing on which DAY each category of life or attribute of Earth was established. This shows both sequence and time scale for EACH event - ordered explicitly.

In the Genesis 2 narrative - you do not get strict chronology until AFTER you have the completion of all life. And even then - the Chronology is not certain. Did God tell man BEFORE He created Eve - about the tree of life?

Eve is very clear on the fact that she was instructed about it by God in chapter 3. If you try to impose "strict sequence and chronology" INTO the second narrative (where it does not work) then you get the garbled mess that the RC members are trying to make of it.

They seek to "ignore" the explicit, clear and obvious chronological - sequence - with its specific timeline in Genesis 1-2:3 and then "fabricate" one for the NON-Chronological narrative of chapter 2 as an "excuse" to undercut the CLEAR and explicit chronology of chapter 1-2:3.

Such tactics will not survive the light of day. They can not work in the modern age - so far from the dark ages, so rich in Bible access - and literacy.

In Christ,

Bob

 

This will throw some for a spin:

In Chapter 1, the author of Genesis portrays the cosmos as a macrotemple.

In Chapter 2, the author of Genesis portrays the Garden of Eden as a sanctuary and Adam as the high priest of the sanctuary.

 

Or, both smart enough to have noticed it and wise enough to have dealt with it.

-Neil

 

"questionable literal interprutation"

The question is only in your mind. So is the irony. By the way I have no problem with 7 days of creation. None. Zip. Nada. I don't even think that Chap 2 contradicts it as has been accused of me by others.

Blessings

 

That is an interesting spin indeed - but in Chapter 1-2:3 we have a literal timeline - a sequential chronology.

Might be good to "notice" the more obvious part as well as some of the spin ideas.

In Christ,

Bob

 

NOW we are on to something. WHY is it so many Catholics are dead set against the literal - explicit "Take-it-as-it-reads" view of Genesis 1-2:3???

What does it "buy them"? What Catholic doctrine is "lost" if you simply accept the Bible as fully truthful and trustworthy in Gen 1-2:3 as Thess claims to do?

Ask Carson - WHY do the Franciscan schools "laugh you out of class" if you dare to express acceptance of the Gen 1-2:3 text AS THOUGH it were "TRUE" in its DETAILS??

Why is it - that in all the responses to the Creation story on this section of the message board the RC response is 99.999% anti-Bible with the very occassional although-seldom-seen post (like that from Thess above) affirming the Bible account?

I have tried this on Phatmass and got "more of the same" a small handful of Catholic posters - responding in favor of the Biblical account - while most other trashed it "religiously".

What is to be "gained by that"?

What Catholic doctrine is "threatened" by simply accepting the Bible account?

In Christ,

Bob

 

The basic problem is that any interpretation of Genesis that affirms the universe to be under 10,000 years old is disproved by the findings of modern science. Additionally, any interpretation of Genesis that affirms evolution is false is disproven by the findings of modern science.

And its not just Catholics who wish to have their interpretation and beliefs as accurate as possible.

 

Paul - nothing could be further from the truth.

Try actually "looking" at the posts on this thread. "Observe" the number of times someone appeals to science-over-Bible arguments.

We do not find here - the focused debate on science that you "presume". What we find is that the housewives and theology majors in the RCC are arguing for evolution and we find scientists observing that evolutionism and Christianity are simply two opposing faiths.

Paul - I appreciate your own blind devotion to the mythologies of evolutionism - (mythologies spun by our atheist friends and considered junk-food by most objective Christians and scientists.)

But when it comes to the humanism and atheism of the mythologies of the high priests of evolutionism - and mixing it in with Christianity even the atheist Richard Dawkins admits that they simply "don't work" as most Bible believing Christians would agree.

In Christ,

Bob