Dae van Genesis Een
Skeiding:
uit niks, die heelal! Worstelinge
tussen God die Skepper en magte van niet-en-verganklikheid, onbegryplik
skrikwekkend aangrypend: “In die begin het God die hemel en die aarde geskape;
en die aarde was woes en leeg, en duisternis was op die wêreldvloed, en die
Gees van God het op die waters gesweef.”
“Maar Gód, het Gespreek:
Dag 1 (v3) “Laat daar lig wees!” – skeiding!
(v4b-5);
Worstelstryd tussen God
van lig en magte van
alomteenwoordige duisternis,
onbegryplik skrikwekkend aangrypend!
Dag 2 (v6) – skeiding!
(v6b-8);
Worstelstryd tussen God
van openbaring en bowêreldse newelskimme, onbegryplik skrikwekkend
aangrypend!
Dag 3 (v9) – skeiding!
(v9b-10),
Worstelstryd tussen God
van orde en woeste magte van kokende wêreldvloed, onbegryplik
skrikwekkend aangrypend!
“Maar God”
. . . vier maal seëvierend in stryd,
“spreek … en daar was” ... vir die eerste keer, léwe – léwe teen
aanvegtinge van dóód, van niet, van duistenis, skimme en chaos!
“Toe
sien God, en dit was ... goed.” (v11-13) God deur te ‘spreek’ én, deur te ‘sien’, ‘skep’; en skep – Lewe!
Dag 4 (v14) – God óór lig én duisternis, óór ‘heersers
van die lug’, in krag: God óór
ruimte én tyd in mag: is God en
Heerser, Enig-aanbiddingswaardige, Ewige Verbonds-God, God oor alles wat in
sigself geen lewe bevat en oor geen lewe beskik nie! “Gód sien, wat Hý
vermag het, en dit was goed.” (14b-19) “Jy mag geen ander gode voor my aangesig
hê
nie; Jy mag geen gelykenis van wat in die hemele is, maak, of voor dit neerbuig
nie!” Hoe gaan die mens nie nog
hierdie Gebod van God oortree nie! Hoe gaan hy nie nog die skepping van God met
sy aanbídding daarvan, onteer nie! En Sonaanbidding is van dag een af die
gruwel der gruwels in die oë van God.
Maar lofwaardig is “Die Evangelie na die Krag, van God, wat ons gered het met ’n heilige roeping, nie
volgens ons werke nie, maar volgens sy
eie Voorneme en Genade wat aan ons van
ewigheid af in Christus Jesus geskenk is, maar wat nou geopenbaar is deur die Verskyning, van
ons Verlosser, Jesus Christus, wat die dood tot niet gemaak het, en die Lewe en Onverderflikheid aan die Lig gebring het . . . Enigste Heerser,
Koning van konings en Here van here, wat alleen Onsterflikheid besit, en
ontoeganklike Lig bewoon, wat geen méns
gesien het of kán sien nie, aan Wie toekom, eer, en ewige krag!”
Dag 5 (v20) – “God het gespreek …” Dit is sy Wet, Koningswet! Oorwinnaarswet! God vermag, met ’n Doel! Vandag vervul God
die moontlikheid wat Hy klaar geskep gehad het, en vul Hy die ruimte wat Hy
alreeds die Tweede Dag bewerkstellig het, met sin en inhoud, en “Spreek en sê,
Laat die waters wemel …” (“Gee vir My iets om te eet?” vra die Koning!)
Ons het gou tot by die
Vyfde Dag gekom. Nou weet ek dit is heeltemal teen die gewone verstaan van Genesis
1 maar moet ek nogtans ’n ander benadering tot die dae van Genesis aan u
voorstel. Toemaar, dis nie ewolusie nie! En ek besef u sal dink ek verbeel my
gans te veel om dit enigsins te noem. Maar my ander benadering
“En dit was aand en môre
die eerste dag …”, begin elke nuwe keppings-dag (‘en alles daarin’) presies deur “En dit was aand en môre die eerste dag …”, as inleiding
tot elke dag, te lees! Want die dae in Genesis 1 begin met hierdie woorde;
hierdie woorde sluit nie die gedeeltes oor elke dag af nie.
Genesis begin met gebeure
wat volgens die Vierde Gebod binne die eerste dag veronderstel word. Genesis 1
self, voorveronderstel ook die skeppingswerk van God wat binne die bestek van
verse 1 tot 5a en voor vers 5b vermeld staan, as synde behorende tot, aan, en
van, die Eerste Dag van God se skeppingsprestasie. Wat juis die Eerste Dag
aanbetref, is dit daarom so dat, terwýl “En dit was aand en môre die eerste dag” die betrokke dag se gebeure agterna saamvat, dit dit ook aan
die begin inlei en inlui! Mens kan dus begin om Genesis – ‘Oorspronge’ – te lees: “Dit was aand en dit was
môre die eerste dag in die begin:
En God het die hemel en die aarde geskape; en die aarde was woes en leeg (op
die Eerste Dag), en duisternis was op die wêreldvloed, en (op die Eerste Dag)
het die Gees van God op die waters gesweef.” Want God het die hemel en die
aarde en álles daarin, op die Eerste Dag, begin skep. Vergelyk 2:4b, “Die dag toe die Here God die aarde én die hemel
gemaak het”! Vir my is dit
onbetwisbaar in die lig van ook die Vierde Gebod wat ál die werke en die héle
skepping van die heelal, binne die tydsbestek van die eerste ses dae
plaas. Ek probeer nie ‘wetenskaplik’
wees nie; ek praat as gelowige in God Almagtige Skepper, en probeer om die
Skrif “volgens die Skrifte” uit te lê – die Skrifte is my enigste maatstaf en
gesag. Daarom dink ek dit staan ons vry
(“Die
waarheid sal julle vry maak.”) om
Genesis 1 ook so te interpreteer dat “Dit was aand en môre die eerste dag in die
begin …” heel vooraan verstáán, móét word, soos ’n opskrif
vir ál daardie dag se gebeure – wat dié vóór vers 5b, insluit. (“Dit was aand en dit was
môre die eerste dag in die begin” klop
buitendien met die dagberekening, éérs aand, dán môre, van heel die Bybel! En “Dit was aand (of nag-donkerte) en dit was môre die eerste dag in die
begin”, klop ook met die
skeppings-gebeurtenis self, toe God ná, en úít, en náás duisternis, niet en
chaos, lig gemaak het, en só, die Eerste Dag geskape het.
Dit gaan beteken dat die
gebeurtenisse wat in verse 6 tot 8b ná
vers 5b – “En
dit was aand en dit was môre die Eerste Dag” – vermeld word, skeppingwerk van en op die Tweede Dag was, en nie, soos ons dit nog altyd verstaan het,
skeppingwerk van die Eerste Dag nie!
Daarmee wil ek dan juis nié, dat dit wat vóór die woorde, “En dit was aand en
môre, Die-Eerste-Dag: …” nie óók
geskép was, nie óók deur Gód geskep was, en nie óók tot
Eerste-Dag-skeppingswerk van God, behoort nie. Eerste-Dag-skeppingswerk sluit
alles geskape vóór, “En
dit was aand en môre, Die-Eerste-Dag”,
ín! Onteenseglik is “En dit was aand en dit
was môre, Die-Eerste-Dag”, ‘Die-Eerste-Dag’-aanhef van
en tot die hele Genesis Een
verhaal van skepping! Hierdie ‘benadering’ sluit enige moontlikheid vir
‘spontane generasie’, ‘selfstandige bestaan’, of ewolusie of watter
ongeloofsgoggas ookal, uit!
Ek wil ’n tweede voorstel
waag, dat die numering van die dae méér as suiwere telling is, en dat dit elke
skeppingsdag se naam, aangee: “En dit was aand en
môre, Die-Eerste-Dag: En God het gesê, Laat daar ’n uitspansel wees”.
Die frases, “En dit was aand en
môre, Die-Eerste-Dag:”, word retories, midde die konteks van uitsluitlik die skepping van die Eerste Dag
geplaas, soos tipies in dialektiese, apologetiese beredenering. U wat vertroud
is met debatvoering sal weet, voordat die orator sy ‘opskrif’ vir sy standpunt
‘stel’, val hy as’t ware met die deur in die huis met kernidee in hooftrekke
saamgevat. Digter, se manier is anders;
hy, sal sê: “ ‘Op die Hoëveld’, deur Toon van den Heever ”; en dan eers sal hy
aangaan met die gedig self, “Op die hoëveld waar dit oop is ...” (As ek my
gediggies en digters reg onthou!) ’n Digter sal nie een versie voordra en dán
eers die titel van die gedig gee nie. Maar nie die meer serebrale debatvoerder
nie. Hy is orator, verteller; wil dadelik indruk maak, en onmiddellik standpunt
duidelik stel. Dan nog al die ondergeskikte detail omtrent homself ens.,
vóórdat hy met sy eintlike ‘redenasie’ sal áángaan asof hy nét begin het. So,
in Genesis Een. Verse 1 tot 5a staan metodies voor vers 5b, nie chronologies
nie.
Aanvaar mens nou hierdie
‘indeling’ van die teks, dan skuif jy elke dag by wyse van spreke, een dag
terug:
(1) Dit was die Eerste Dag
waarop God hemel en aarde gemaak
het; dit was die Éérste Dag steeds waarop God
gesê het: Laat daar lig wees; dit was die Eerste Dag stééds
waarop God dag en nag vanmekaar
geskei het; én, dit was die Eerste Dag steeds toe God gesê het: Laat daar ’n uitspansel wees!
(2) Dan was dit die Twééde
Dag maar, waarop God die see en aarde geskei het, en plantlewe geskep het;
(3) Dan was dit die Dérde Dag al, waarop God die ‘hemelligte’
aangestel het om te heers – anders as wat ons dit altyd verstaan het, op die
vierde dag.
(4) En so moes dit die Vierde Dag gewees het waarop God die see met lewe gevul en sy doel met die skepping daarvan, vervul het.
(5) “Verder was dit aand en
môre die Vyfde Dag toe God gesê het:
Laat die aarde, lewende wesens voortbring”,
en toe Hy sy doel met al die Tweede Dag se skepping van aardse lewensruimte,
vervul het.
Skielik staar moeilikheid
ons in die oog! Wat nou gemaak? Die mens op die Vyfde Dag geskape? En ’n leë,
stil, dooie, Vrydag-Sesde Dag? Is dit
nou op die Vyfde Dag dat “God alles wat Hy gemaak het, sien, en verklaar, Dit
was baie
goed”? Is dan ‘so’ “voltooi, die hemel en die aarde met
hulle ganse leërmag”? “So is voltooi …” Hoe, “So …”?! Op die Vyfde Dag voltooi?
A nee a! “Want in ses dae (nie net in vyf dae nie), het die HERE die hemel en die
aarde gemaak, en die see, en alles wat in (aldrie) is – die mens inkluis!”
(Ex20:11 en 31:17) Nadat God die mens geskape het, toe eers het Hy sy
skeppingswerk voltooi “En was dit aand en môre die Sesde Dag”.
Daar is net een manier –
so ver as ek
Hier is dan die oplossing.
Net soos ons aan die begin gesien het dat die inleiding van die Eerste Dag eers
ná sy werklike aanvang
vermeld staan, word die inleiding van die Sesde Dag, óók, eers ná die gebeure
daarvan, aangehef. Nogmaals, op beklemtonende, aan betekenis sware, retoriese
wyse. Al wat vir ons oorbly om te doen,
is om te gaan kyk wáár die Sesde Dag se aanvang in die konteks, nou eintlik
lê. En dit is tog gladnie moeilik nie, want, Word die skeppingsdae nie keer
op keer afgesluit met
God se eie oorsig en bevinding – met Goddelike konklusie – nie?
Inderdaad!
Ná die Eerste Dag: “God hét toe die uitspansel gemaak en die waters
wat onder die uitspansel is geskei van die waters wat bo die uitspansel is … En dit wás so; en God het die
uitspansel, ‘hemel’, genoem.”
God gee naam aan die hele wydste hemele van sy grote skepping – alles, “die werke van sy hande”, wat Hy
“nooit sal laat vaar nie”. Dit sluit alles voor vers 5b in! God was van die begin af: God oweral
Teenwoordig, God oweral Almagtig. Sonder Hom het niks onstaan wat ontstaan het
nie; deur Hom en uit Hom en tot Hom, is alle dinge.
Aan die einde van die Tweede Dag: v10 en 12, Seewaters versamel en aarde en wolke
word sigbaar ... en dit was so.
Toe sien God dat dit goed was.
Die aarde het
(plante) voortgebring. … Toe sien God dat dit goed was.”
Alvorens God lewe geskep het, sal Hy nie verklaar “dat dit goed was” nie! God begin sy tuin vir die mens met goeie grond en lewe,
Gn1:8b-12, 2:7 en 3:1c. Daarom lees ons tweemaal
op die Tweede Dag, “Toe sien God dat dit
goed was” – met die oog op wat Hy
op die Sesde Dag, “baie
goed”, sou gáán doen het.
Aan die einde van die Derde Dag: v17-18, “God het die ligte aan die uitspansel van
die heelal gestel om op die aarde lig te gee en om oor dag en nag te heers en
skeiding te maak. v18c, Toe sien God
dat dit goed was.”
Aan die einde van die Vierde Dag: v21c, “Toe
sien God dat dit goed was. En God het hulle (die visse en die voëls)
geseën en gesê: Wees vrugbaar en vermeerder en vul die waters in die see, en
laat die voëls (van die lug) op die aarde vermeerder.”
Let eers op hoedat “Toe sien God dat dit goed was” in
verse 21-22 na aanleiding van die skepping van die betrokke dag, eerste staan,
en nie agterna soos in al die ander gevalle nie. Dit bevestig ons stelling soos
van toepassing op die dae se name, dat hulle eerste
Aan die einde van die Vyfde Dag: “En God het die wilde diere van die aarde gemaak
volgens hulle soorte en die vee volgens hulle soorte, en al die diere wat op
die grond kruip, volgens hulle soorte. Toe
sien God dat dit goed was.”
Op hierdie Vyfde Dag
verklaar God, Hy is Wetgewer oor lewendige én ‘dooie’ dinge, want Hy is dit wat
na orde en skikking volgens sy wil, ‘dooie’, én lewendige dinge, na soort en aard voortgebring het, en
daaroor blý beskik. (“Vir alles het Hy grense gestel.”) “En dit was so” . . . en so sal dit wees tot in ewigheid. Vrees nie
oor ’n ‘skepping’ wat aan menslike vernietiging onderworpe sou kon wees nie.
Net Een is Smelter van die elemente: Hy wat die
elemente gemaak het. Net
een is Gieter: Hy wat die mens uit die stof van die aarde ‘gevorm’ het. God die
Beskikker is God die Bewaker en Verlosser van gans en al die werke van sy
hande. God heers! Vers 25c dan, “Toe
sien God dat dit goed was.” Dit
was God se besluit van en op die Vyfde
Dag. Maar hierdie is nie God se finale
besluit – sy finale konklusie of beaming of blyke van tevredenheid nie! Daar wag ’n beter verklaring van die Skepper self – sy verklaring van die Sesde Dag naamlik.
Aan die einde van die Sesde Dag:
“Toe sien God, álles, wat
Hy gemaak het, en – dit was … báie,
goed!”
Nou wat het hierdie beter gevolgtrekking by God self teweeggebring? Wat
het aanleiding gegee vir God se groter genoegdoening? Niks anders nie as God se
skepping van die mens nie!
Niks anders nie as God se voltooiing
van sy skepping met sy skepping van
die méns nie! Niks anders nie as God se voltooiing
van sy skepping met sy skepping op die Sesde
Dag nie! Dáárom is die aanvang
van die Sesde Dag sonder enige huiwering in die teks aantoonbaar dáár, waar “God gespreek het: Laat ons mense maak!” Die Sesde
Dag, begin, met vers 26! Die Sesde Dag begin nie met vers 24 nie; en die Vyfde Dag
eindig nie met vers 23 nie, maar begin, met vers 23! En so terugwerkend tot die Eerste Dag. Die naam van die dag, ‘Eerste Dag’, ‘Tweede
Dag’, en so aan, lei die dag in, en
sluit dit nie af nie . . . behalwe,
in die geval van die Sesde Dag, juis omdat God sy eie, laaste, afsluitende voltooiingswerk – God se skepping van
die mens op die Sesde Dag – self soveel wonderliker as sy skepping van al die
vorige dae tesame, geag het. Want die Sesde Dag is enig daarin dat dit
skeppingsdag van die mens en net van die mens was; enig, omdat God méér as sy
gewone ‘goeie’ werk daarop gedoen het; omdat God op die Sesde Dag die mens, ‘baie goed’, gemaak het – inderdaad “na die beeld van God
gemaak het”. Geen ander skepping van
God pas, by God se werk van die Sesde Dag nie omdat, geen van God se vorige
werke daarteen kan opweeg na
waardigheid en heerlikheid
nie – omrede die mens!
Kan u nou sien hoedat hierdie
afsluiting van die Sesde Dag van die
skeppingswerk van God, terugreik,
tot aan sy begin, tot aan sy fondamente – tot aan, “En God het gespreek:
Laat ons mense maak!”? Want
hier begin God se ‘baie’,
goeie werk!
En nog is hierdie slot op
die Sesde Dag, “Toe sien God, álles, wat Hy gemaak het, en – dit was
… báie, goed!”, nie waar die
teks met die skeppingsverhaal van die eerste ses dae ophou nie.
Die chiastiese struktuur
waaruit Genesis een opgebou is, word hier baie duidelik. Net soos die teks begin het met die groter
geheel van die begin van God se skepping vóór, die eintlike aanhef by wyse van “En dit was aand en dit
was môre die Eerste Dag”, eindig dit die groter geheel
van die begin van God se skepping ná,
die eintlike slot by wyse van “Toe
sien God, álles, wat Hy gemaak het,
en – dit was … báie, goed!” Want
opvolgend staan weereens verder vermeld, “En dit was aand en dit was môre die Sesde Dag,
So is dan voltooi die hemel en die aarde met hulle ganse leërmag.” Eers hier, eindig Genesis 1 werklik.
(Ongelukkig, soos u weet, sny die teksindeling die laaste sin van die Eerste
Dag af.)
Dae van Genesis 1, 2 en 3
Genesis 1, Dae:-
|.………1…|2……….…|3……………|4……………|5…………|…….…6…|
1…….8a…|8b……12|13…..…18|19…….22|23…..25|26……2:1
en teksplase… “Dit was aand
en dit was môre die ...”
Sewende Dag: 2:2-3 / 4a
Genesis 2, Teks en Dae:-
|4b………6|………………………………………………………..|7……….7|
|…………….|8………14|………………………………………..|15……18|
|.……………………………….…………|19b………|19a……|19c….25|
|…….1……|…….2…….|……3……|…….4……|……5…..|……6…….|
Genesis 3:- Sesde Dag:
………………………………….|….1-7….|
Sewende Dag.……………………………|..8-24..|
Genesis 2, 3 – Piramiede:-
………………………….Sewende Dag………………………….|3: 8-24|
………………….…………………………………………………………|
3: 1-7 |
.……………………………………………....|19b………..|19a…...…|19c….25|
……………..|8………14|……………………………………........……|15……18|
|4b………6|…………………………………………………….......……..|7……….7|
|…….1……|…….2…….|………3..…..|……..4…….|…….5…….|……6……|
Genesis 3
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
2 |
Genesis 2 |
6 |
||||||||||
|
|
1 |
|
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
|
5 |
|
|
6 |
|
8 Februarie 2008
Days of Genesis 1 in Chapters 2
and 3
(Part One)
You
know my standpoint from past discussions. I say the fall happened on the sixth
day – the day of the creation of man: The same day. The Text UNINTERRUPTEDLY in
chapters 2 to 3 goes on to tell how God after the fall of man, called for him
in the garden – Afrikaans – "In the evening breeze", English,
"in the cool of day" (from, ‘to
deilinon’ / ‘ruach’). That was
after the Sixth Day, as the Seventh Day with evening after sunset had begun.
Scriptures
– I don't care whatsoever what anybody whosoever says – Scriptures, makes NO
break between the Sixth and Seventh Days; Scriptures gives NO 'history' other
than man's creation and fall in “the garden”. Like ‘in the garden’ of God’s
planting there is NO 'history' other than man's, so in the six days of God’s
creating there is NO 'history' other than of man’s creation and fall. But “on the Seventh Day God rested” in that
He through grace provided for forgiveness of sin on it, and, on the Seventh
Day, over sin and death conquered: Through the Lamb – symbolically through the
blood taken for life there and then – not long afterwards.
My
standpoint is built upon a vertical following up of the three 'stories' of
Genesis 1, 2 and 3; I don't arrange them linearly. The repeated references to
the SAME days of the ONE creation in the three chapters, are undeniable. Their
sequence is the very same, over-spanning like a beam resting on the pillars of
days one and two, and six.
Of
interest also is the division of the days of 'creation-week' – of the first six
days – specifically, whereby the Sixth Day belonged to the creation of man
only, and wasn't shared with the creation of animals (created on the Fifth Day
as I have shown in our first conversation on the present subject, ‘Dae van Genesis
Een’).
Have I
come up with this, myself; is it supported by theologians?
Not
all of it – not the division of days in Genesis 1; that was my own. But for the
fall on man’s first day I do have the support of good men! But their support is nothing to me – as I
have said above! It is what the Bible teaches, that matters.
Some
of you have protested: “There is not one
particle of Scripture that supports your conjecture or re-division of the
creation days! A ‘house of cards’ will usually collapse of its own weight, in
the slightest breeze. There is also not
one particle of Scripture to suggest the fall of man happened on the Sixth Day
– “the day of the creation of man".
We simply are not told when this did occur, only that it did occur, and
sometime after Adam and Eve were around.
Conjecture is still conjecture, and it makes little difference whose it
is; that does not change its nature.”
Quibling,
yet another, protested: “That's what I
said!” as if he might loose out on the credit for my undoing. I answer: My friends, I return your questions with gratitude, since you are the ones who
proposed the indubitable notion, “Only
that it did occur, and sometime after Adam and Eve were around”. What would
make the ‘sometime after’ another day
or another year or another century later or ‘after’? You – friend or foe
it matters not – give me, 'one particle
of Scripture to suggest', the fall of man ‘occurred some time after on the Sixth Day’ – the day of the creation of man? You, present it! Here’s your opportunity to make me look foolish,
because so far you have made only yourselves look foolish! Only one Scripture
will do it! Just ‘one particle of
Scripture to suggest’ it; or only one Scripture why, ‘We simply are not told when this did occur’! … Such you presume right
after having read Genesis 1, 2 and 3 right where it is told you in Scripture by
Scripture, when as well as why the fall occurred!
‘My’
idea still is to show how the whole Bible, Genesis 1–3 included, is the story
of Redemption; and not even in
purpose, of creation firstly or independently.
In
vain do you protest: “You suspend the
Sabbath Day in mid air.”
I say,
No, you do! My illustration—from the Bible— firmly basis the the Seventh Day,
on, God’s works of His creating; but also on, God’s Greater Work of Redemption – veritably His Ultimate Work of the
Finishing the creation of God in, and through, Jesus Christ. The Sabbath Day of
the creation is Eschatology, in essence and, in time, wholly, fully and
finally; it has everything to do with Jesus Christ, with the Revelation of God,
and with His Salvation, or, not even with God’s creation, had anything to
do. The Sabbath Day had this
Eschatological, Christological, Soteriological relation to and relationship
with the first six days of creation, “In the beginning”, or never would find it
and never has had it “in the beginning”.
But
the nexus of your arguments against the eschatological significance of the
Creation-Sabbath, consists in tradition
– which tradition the nexus of, is 'free–will'
error: Arminianism and Humanism, namely IMPROVEMENT on God's work 'very
well done'. In other words, Adam first had to 'develop' into a 'mature' being
before he could be able 'to make decision' properly – and that here lies, where
he actually ‘failed’. He failed in his development; not in his act of taking of
the fruit. Now I don't know if I'm correct, but I thought you were free–grace
men, and not 'free–will' men. Your standpoint here, reveals perhaps more than
you bargained for!
I also
thought you believed in ‘creation’? But your protests look more like arguments
for ‘evolution’ to me.
Having
given you then the first three chapters of Scriptures, I am the only one who
was able to present that little bit necessary and totally ample Scripture, while you, unable to present
one fragment of Scripture in support of more days in Paradise than the day of
man’s creation, have left yourselves in the lurch. You get out yourselves! You
won’t in eternity find that Scripture though.
Nevertheless
you should get out ‘sometime’, since
according to you if only your forebear Adam had had the time to have tried long enough, he could have tried hard enough and would not have made his
mistake. Had Adam a fair deal and enough time and ‘assistance’ he would have improved his choice. It is obvious Adam
understood what he did; and with time, what might he have achieved? Would he
not have got it right in the end? Why the sudden crisis?
You
make sin, no sin! Is not your argument of more time in
The
strangest in this whole matter is how ‘free grace’ stalwarts of Reformed
Protestantism a sudden find themselves allies of ‘free will’ verbosity!
“You are making scripture say what you want
it to, without any true scriptural evidence. You can not make it say what it
does not say.”
Your
very best animadversion to my presentation of purely Scripture! See yourself in
your own words! Not I, not you (perhaps ‘translators’), are able to make the
Scriptures say what they don’t say. The Scriptures can only say what they say.
I repeat my question, Where does the Scriptures say Adam fell “sometime after the Sixth Day”? They
don’t; they say God created the heavens and the earth in six days; then they go
on to tell with what care God prepared a perfect environment for a perfectly
created human couple; then they go on to tell how God created them in His own
image; and without interruption how, the same day, man returned God’s favour;
and without interruption once more, the Scriptures go on to tell how God, on
man’s betrayal of Divine Trust, Mercy and Love, without interruption whatsoever
on the Seventh Day, answered. The story of Redemption and Grace completes the
story of the “six days” of the “beginnings
of the heavens and the earth” and everything that in them is, and on them in
the Sixth and Seventh Days, happened.
Which Seventh Day God for mercies’ sake ended after He had driven man out of
His Delight and Rest, and forbade and prevented him without Christ ever to
enter into, again. That’s what the
Sabbath was made for – ever!
Why
would I want to make the Scriptures say what I want and not what they want –
whether I liked it or not? Because it is
a very unflattering picture of man as it stands in Genesis 1–3 – nothing on the
part of man to feel proud about. Paul says of Adam, "By one man sin
entered into the world"! Paul doesn't blame the devil even; he gives Adam
(and Eve) ALL the blame –– and here's my point: ALL the blame for this most
tragic, devastating, indescribable, unpardonable but for the grace of God : SIN
which is not lessened but aggravated by the dual fact Adam sinned while perfect
and without delay!
NOWHERE
in Scripture do I find how this man Adam sinless and perfect IN EVERY respect
from the hand of his Creator, could open the portals of heaven (so to speak of
salvation) an inch wide by future improvement or by accumulated merit. It ALL
had to be of GRACE in order to be the salvation of GOD! From day one on.
Objection:
“Not that facts are particularly
deterring you in your conclusions!”
Answer: Small detail as it happened to be as long as
they are Scripture–detail, that's what weighs heavily with me. I have given you
the bigger picture. Now consider just this small overlooked fact strategically
placed in vers 4: “These
are developments, origins, generations – HISTORIES – of the heavens and of the
earth” and all that
is in them, naturally: “When they were created”; “In the
day”, that
the LORD made them. Then the ‘histories’ follow – with which is included
the history of man in that very day, which history is of two developments ONLY:
Man's perfect sinless creation “VERY GOOD”; and b, man’s very bad fall ––– “in that day”, “when created”.
Here's
another of those overlooked smaller detail that has bearing on the subject –
not like those off–course technicalities of inaccuracies on my side (rectified
or deleted) that don't count a point in the actual matter, but you are quick to
capitalise on. Another one such small detail, I say, piling up the “particles” and ‘shreds' of Scripture one
by one, slowly, but surely; giving ample time and opportunity for those
brilliant minds so quick to discover my blunders and ineptness:–
Without
a “particle” or 'shred' of Scripture
hidden in or between the first three chapters of Genesis, God tells us of the
creation of the world and everything in it:
Adam and Eve created:
Gn1:26–2:1 and Gn2:7, 15–18, 19b–25; Adam and Eve fell, Gn3:1–7; After THIS, the Sabbath, Gn2:2 and Gn3:8–24, God curses, but also, redeems! No one questions
the fact God spoke the curse after no
interval in time after the fall, but, soon, when or as soon as told, after:
by all information, the very same day!
But speak of man’s fall after
no interval in time after his creation, but, soon, when or as soon as told
after: by all information, the very same day, and shouts of declammation break
loose; yea, dare say, and saying, with no loss in time, be ridiculed, branded
and condemned a heretic!
Explanation of sin would
be excuse for sin; to make time a factor whatsoever in Adam’s sinning, would
make time Adam’s justification in
sinning.
“(Man) was full of holiness.
Learn from Adam’s fall how
long we would stand in our own
strength! Ere nightfall we shall have fallen innumerable times.
Because: “The
origin of sin, from whence it comes. It fetches its pedigree from hell; sin is
the devil. “He that committeth sin is of the devil.” 1Jn3:8. Satan was the first actor of sin, and the
first tempter to sin. Sin is the devil’s first-born. ... Malice is the devil’s
eye, hypocricy his cloven foot. It turns man into a devil. ... The Hebrew word
for sin, Pasha, signifies rebellion ... Sin strikes at the very Deity; Peccatum
est Deicidium: Sin is God’s would-be murderer. Sin would not only unthrone God,
sin would un-God Him.” Ibid, p.133/134.
“ “God made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions” no
sooner than they “saw the tree was to be desired to make one wise”. Gn3:6.
“Adam had a fair lordship, he was king of the world. But he lost all at one throw. Soon as he
sinned, he forfeited paradise. Adam’s fall was sudden; he did not long continue
in his royal majesty. Tostatus says, he fell the next day. Pererius says, he
fell on the eighth day after his creation. The most probable and received
opinion is, that he fell the very same day in which he was created. So
Irenaeus, Cyril, Epiphanius, and many others. The reasons which incline me to
believe so are, (1) It is said, Satan was a murderer, “from the beginning”.
Jn8:44. Now, whom did he murder? Not the blessed angels, he could not reach
them; nor the cursed angels, for they had before destroyed themselves. How then
was satan a murderer from the beginning? As soon as satan fell, he began to
tempt mankind to sin; this was a murdering temptation. By which it appears Adam
did not stay long in Paradise; soon after his creation the devil set upon him,
and murdered him by his temptation. (2)
Adam had not yet eaten of the tree of life. “And now, lest he put forth his
hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat; the Lord sent him forth of the
garden.” Gn3:22,23. This tree of life, being one of the choicest fruits in the
garden, and being placed in the midst of Paradise, it is very likely Adam would
have eaten of this tree of life one of the first, had not the serpent beguiled
him with the tree of knowledge. So that I conclude, Adam fell the very day of
his creation, because he had not tasted the tree of life, that tree that was
most in his eye, and had such delicious fruit growing upon it. (3) ‘Man being in honour, abideth not.”
Ps49:12. The Rabbins read it thus, ‘Adam
being in honour, lodged not one night.’ The Hebrew word for ‘abide’, signifies,
‘To stay or lodge for the night’. Adam then, it seems, did not take up one
night’s lodging in
It is as though I could
see, after Eve after her creation had moved to Adam’s side and they both stood
looking at the tree of life, ready to pluck from it their first meal, how satan
appeared to them, and lured them away from it to the tree of knowledge, and
both suffered defeat there and then. Ah! said the devil, What you think God
forbade you this tree for but allowed you the other to eat of? “It is
God’s envying your felicity, that
he forbids you this tree. ... The devil was first a liar, then a murderer. ...
His wiles are worse than his darts.” Ibid p 139.
“If our nature was thus weak when it was at its best, what is it now
when it is at the worst?” Ibid p 138. So
what could delay their fall? By their free will – it is plain – Adam and Eve
hastened their fall!
Man the first day of his
life, did sin, because God not on the Sixth
Day “from
all His works rested”, nor on the
Sixth Day fulfilled or finished in perfection all that He had made though He
had created it all “good” and man, indeed “very good”. But God “on the Seventh Day, ended his work which He
had made, and on the Seventh rested from all his works which He had made.” So “God blessed the Seventh Day and sanctified it:
Because that in it (not in man but through Christ), He had rested from
all his works which God created and made.”
Man, God on the Seventh Day drove out, from the garden, and by oath would not
allow him in again but in and through Jesus Christ Redeemer of God’s in the end
of the world. Hebrews 1 to 4 and all the Scriptures as well.
Now that is what the Word
says. (And faithful ‘theologians’ agree in.) God would not in the goodness of
man perfect what He had begun Himself; but God in Himself through Jesus Christ
would “finish
all the works of God”. “For God thus concerning
the Seventh day spoke, And God on the Seventh Day finished all the works of
God.”
“God
in these last days hath spoken unto us by His Son, Whom He hath appointed Heir
of all things; by Whom also He made the worlds. Who being the brightness of his
Glory and the express image of His (own) Person ... when He had by Himself
purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high, being made
much better than the angels, as He, hath by inheritance obtained a more
excellent Name than they.” Now did not God create man “a little lower than the
angels”? But He Christ, God made “much higher than the
angels”; how much higher then above
man, in his perfection has God exalted Christ? So that we see Jesus in God’s
finishing and rest upon and of the Seventh Day of His working to the exceeding
greatness of His Power, “to
us-ward”. In fact by God’s working “for the sake of man(’s redemption)” did the Sabbath Day come into
being and obtained it a status it before has not had; God otherwise never would have “made the
Sabbath”, or never “thus
concerning the Seventh Day”, would have “spoken”. In being and becoming the Day of God’s Rest “for the sake of man” through Jesus Christ, the Seventh Day “was made”, “the Sabbath of the LORD
your God” – which same Sabbath Day “therefore, remains
valid for keeping by the People of God.”
Days of Genesis 1 in 2 and 3 (B)
GE:
Genesis 2 and 3 are an expansion
of the Sixth and Seventh days of creation.
COBRA:
“It cannot be an expansion on the Sixth and
Seventh days, as you propose, because the earth had already brought forth
vegetation before the Sixth day in the Genesis 1 creation account. (Genesis
1:12-13 shows this: The land produced vegetation – plants yielding seeds
according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to
their kinds. God saw that it was good. 1:13 There was evening, and there was
morning, a third day.)
I think a position that declares a passage must be taken literally but then
must deny the literal words of the passage is a contradiction........
........
I
think taking that position requires one to deny what the text actually says. I
like the NET Bible notes on this (emphasis mine):
Heb “Now every sprig of the field before it was.” The verb forms, although
appearing to be imperfects, are technically preterites coming after the adverb טֶּרֶם (terem). The word order (conjunction + subject + predicate)
indicates a disjunctive clause, which provides background information for the
following narrative (as in 1:2). Two negative clauses are given (“before any
sprig…”, and “before any cultivated grain” existed), followed by two causal
clauses explaining them, and then a positive circumstantial clause is given –
again dealing with water as in 1:2 (water would well up).
14tn The first term, שִׂיחַ (siakh), probably refers to the wild, uncultivated plants (see
Gen 21:15; Job 30:4,7); whereas the second, עֵשֶׂב (’esev), refers to cultivated grains. It is a way of saying:
“back before anything was growing.” (you can find that here: http://bible.org/netbible/index.htm
)
Man was created "back before anything was growing." Then woman was
created after all the animals were created and found unsuitable as Adam's
helper.
GE:
Genesis
2 does NOT "clearly state that Adam was created
before the plants and animals"; and the “chronology of events” according to the “text” of the “passage” Genesis 2 to 3, no how has a
reversed order CONTRARY chapter 1 that intends to say “Man was created "back
before anything was growing." Then woman was created after all the animals
were created and found unsuitable as Adam's helper.”
COBRA:
“.... are you claiming that Genesis 1 has the
same chronology of events as Genesis 2, or do you recognize that two different
chronologies are presented?”
GE:
I do not “recognize
that two different chronologies are presented”. I say Genesis 2 and 3 as one pericope
contains the history of the Seventh Day only; it contains no “chronology of events” of “back before”. ‘The events’ of the creation of man and plants are ‘played back’ in 2:5 as it were like
a film reversed: man created on the
Sixth Day, verse 5d; and plants created on the Fifth Day, verse 5a.
Mine is no scientific explanation, please; I deal
with the text as such as translated for me or the next guy, say,
‘liguistically’.
[Genesis 2 and 3
completes the history of the Sixth Day beginning after 1:25, “And God saw
that it (his creation of animals) was good.” The Sixth Day stretches from verse 26 to and including
chapter 2:1. The division between the Fifth and Sixth days after 1:25 in the ‘chronology of events’ and not after verse 23, is another subject. See my study,
‘Dae van Genesis 1’, unfortunately only in Afrikaans.]
Chapter 2:2 up to 3:24 contains
the story of the Seventh Day; so how can it have a “chronology of events”? This whole
section 2:2 to 3:24 as one unit – ‘pericope’ – is the Explanation at the hand
of the history of the Seventh Day of why and how Adam and Eve did not die the
very day as God said they would if they sinned (2:7). Chapter 2:2 up to 3:24 is the ‘historic
chapter’ of Grace of the history and chronology of the creation.
My “position”
therefore – to use your words from “NET Bible notes” –, “requires” that “The word
order .... indicates a disjunctive clause, which provides background information
for the following narrative” IN FACT!
“A disjunctive clause” – to my
understanding of the words – means it does not in chronological order join that
which goes before with that which follows after. It rather serves as, or, “provides background information
for, the following narrative”. It does not in
chronological order join OR REPEAT, but breaks chronological order; stops it;
interrupts it, ‘disjoins’ it in order to “provide background
information for the following narrative”. I believe EXACTLY that.
The “events” mentioned in verse 5 are supplementary, and are referred
to without consideration to chronological order. They “provide” the “disjunctive
clause” as “background information for the following narrative” that
begins in 2:2 and continues to 3:24— and that covers the ‘chronology’ of the
events of but the Seventh Day.
It is often observed ‘The Seventh Day has no evening mentioned’,
meaning to state that no ending of the Seventh Day is given like as for the
days before it. Well yes, chapters 2 to
three supply that ending to the Seventh Day that in the days before it is
simply mentioned in retrospection.
The ONLY direct “chronology of events” in chapters 2 and 3, is that of the Seventh Day following
on the Sixth Day. There is no “chronology of events” in
whichever order that “provides” or repeats the “events” of the first six days. Verse 5 refers
“back”
to the whole of the foregoing saga without consideration to “chronology of events”,
and “indicates a disjunctive clause
which provides background information” for the WHOLE of the “following
narrative”, the narrative of the provisions of
Divine mercy and love— the story of the Seventh Day, and therefore the story of
God in Christ.
The story of the first six days is
historical and therefore ‘chronological’; and the story of the Seventh Day is
soteriological and therefore eschatological and as it were is suspended OVER
the previous history of the first six days— especially over the Sixth Day.
See my study, ‘Days of Genesis 1
in 2 and 3’ and my ‘vertical’ rather than ‘horizontal’ arrangement of the seven
days of creation.
Cobra:
“GE wrote: I do not “recognize that two
different chronologies are presented”.
GE, do you believe that Genesis 1 says animals were created before man? and do
you believe that Genesis 2 says man was alone so God created the animals?
(NRSV: 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.)
If Genesis 1 says animals were created before man and
if Genesis 2 says man was alone so God created animals
how can you not recognize there are different chronologies?”
Re: Cobra:
“GE, do you believe that Genesis 1 says
animals were created before man?”
GE:
Yes, I do; on the fifth day.
Re: Cobra:
“and do you believe that Genesis 2 says man
was alone so God created the animals?”
GE:
No, I do not believe that Genesis 2 says man was alone so God created the
animals.
Re: Cobra:
OSTENSIBLY quoting: “NRSV: 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.”
GE:
What about the verses in between? .... 1: 28 to 2:17?
1:27 says, “God created man .... male and female created
He THEM.” In CHRONOLOGICAL sequence,
1:28 came directly before 2:17; in textual sequence there are parentheses in
between without reference to time or days. The use of the word “Then” in “NRSV”
is undesirable; the KJV’s “And”, is correct.
Cobra:
“If Genesis 1
says animals were created before man and
if Genesis 2 says man was alone so God created animals .....”
GE:
.... then YOU, are manhandling the Scriptures!
Cobra:
“.... how can
you not recognize there are different chronologies?”
GE:
Simply by reading the Scriptures as they stand.
Marcus Enoch:
“GE and I rarely agree on much, but his
analogy of the chronology is correct, and sorry, but you are wrong. Genesis 1
is the chronology. Genesis 2 is referencing back to the particular moment when
G~d states that it is not good for man to be alone. So...since He had already
made the animals prior to creating man on the sixth day, He goes back and
brings the already living animals before Adam for inspection and naming:
The
key word is found in verse 19 of chapter 2:
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts
of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see
what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that
was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds
of the air and all the beasts of the field.
The word 'so' is irrelevant in this case as it is dealing with a situation
after the two, animals and man, have been created, a fait accompli. You cannot
reorder the sequence based on your want. The RSV was a bad translation, and if
your doctrine is based on the NRSV, then I would suggest a different bible
translation is advisable.”
Cobra:
“GE writes:
No, I do not believe that Genesis 2 says man was alone so God created the animals".
Then you are denying the literal meaning of the statements in Genesis 2:
(NRSV: 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.)
GE writes, “In
CHRONOLOGICAL sequence, 1:28 came directly before 2:17; in textual sequence
there are parentheses in between without reference to time or days. The use of
the word “Then” in “NRSV” is undesirable; the KJV’s “And”, is correct.
You want to change the chronology by reordering the verses? That won't work,
because the chronology of Chapter 2 does not rest on the word "then."
The word "so" is important. Man was alone so God formed the animals.
"So" connects chronology through cause and effect (e.g., I ran out of
milk so I went to the store.)
GE, you are denying the literal wording of Genesis 2 and reordering the
scripture to try to fit the differing chronologies together (and they don't
fit).
If you don't believe it is necessary to take Genesis 2 literally, but you do
believe Genesis 1 should be taken literally, how did you decide which one of
the two should be taken literally?”
GE:
Dear Cobra, There is more to the meaning of any literature than word order and textual sequence.
Style and form also play a role. Genesis 1 to 3 is written in the ‘style’ of a story or narrative or ‘saga’. It is composed in form to a ‘chiasm’. The passages you are referring to are especially, ‘telling’.
I have been derided when I said that Genesis one, two and three are written in the form of chiasm. But the person who derided only showed his ignorance. Chiasm can be poetry, and poetry chiasm. In both, word order is meant to impress. In Hebrew, I understand, it is more a matter of the rhyming and rhythm of ideas placed in certain positions than of words or sounds in linear sequence. Only someone conversant with Hebrew will be able to show the chiasm or chiasms properly; I have never claimed to know Hebrew, what to be an authority on the language.
Enough though is clear from the translation that we have. Like that, composition in chapter one is by arrangement according to chronology or chronology as the ideas or building-blocks for composition; in chapters 2 to 3 composition is by arrangement of events or ideas as events or building-blocks for composition, apart from chronology. There is no need to be chronologically correct in 2 to 3.
The KJV has a bullet-mark that indicates verse 18 is the beginning of a new pericope. It starts with its own sub-introduction: the creation of animals. Like “the NET Bible notes .... technically preterites .... a disjunctive clause, which provides background information for the following narrative (as in 1:2 ....” [quoted originally by Cobra.] and in each section before every day in chapter 1, and in 2:4 and in 2:8 and in 2:18 and 3:1 and 3:22— FORM and STYLE!
Form and style tell a story of their own definitely not time-bound in the smallest possible of detail like in the case of Cobra’s little word “so” in the ““NRSV””; nevertheless still ‘time-bound’ in the greater context of the Seventh Day Sabbath of the text.
H. C. Leupold, ‘Exposition of Genesis’, “19 .... Without any emphasis on the sequence of acts the account here records the making of the various creatures and the bringing of them to man. That in reality they had been made PRIOR to the creation of man is so ENTIRELY APPARENT from chapter one as not to require explanation. .... It would not, in our estimation, be wrong to translate ‘yatsar’ as a Pluperfect in this instance: “He had molded.” The insistence of the critics upon a plain Past is partly the result of the attempt to make chapters one and two clash at as many points as possible.” (Emphasis GE)
“Genesis is a collection of stories” (‘sagas’). (Gunkel) Not a collection of contradictions. Genesis 1 is the story of the six creation days; Genesis 2 and 3, the story of the Seventh Day Sabbath. It is understandable the first chapter is constructed around chronology; it is understandable the second and third chapters analyse; they as it were came to ‘rest’ on the events of the ‘rest-’ or last day of the stories. Chronology in chapters 2 and 3 is retrospective; days are overviewed, and their events are reviewed and taken account of. The approach to subject-matter is not according to time-sequence; chronology has become secondary and subservient to 'message' or analogy. The focus of the story is on a single day’s events and the relation of to both the days and events in the previous story in chapter one.
There are no real ‘problems’ for God; He needs not to experiment to find out what would be good or not good for the man. But in the story, God is faced with a ‘problem’. How to solve the ‘problem’? Well, God created the animals, didn’t He? Or let’s tell the story in the First Person: ‘Now what shall I do to find a suitable companion for the man I have created? “I shall create for him an help meet for him” 1:18b. God KNEW what He would do: He would create Eve that “help meet for” Adam. God KNEW no animal would be right to take Eve’s place. But this is our story: It goes like this: ‘Now out of the ground I formed every beast, haven’t I; I know what I am doing, OK? So, I’ll see if the man will accept them.’ Said God, but He knew all the while. Of course God knew everything in advance from the beginning; this is only the story; the story told as the writer imagined it. Yes, of course, we believe everything the writer imagined; he imagined as God put the ideas in his mind, and he wrote them down; like a good author of a good story would. And the truth because this is no ordinary story; it is God’s Word.
You see, after we have done our study, we more resolutely write our story using capital letters for the Pronouns and Names we use for God; we more firmly came to believe in God by our study and through our approach to our study. But there are people who will study so that they in the end may have found reason no longer to write the Pronouns for and Names of God in capital letters. Not funny; it is very serious stuff. It is the only thing that makes my study of the Word of God worth its, and my, while.
Despite, Cobra making much use of illogical logic cultivates his critical approach of contradiction between Genesis 1 and chapters 2 and 3 as contained chapters 2 and 3 the story of the first six days, repeated in supposed to be a contradictory time order. Well, of course if a matter of approach it will be easy to find or create, contradiction.
Re: “.... differing chronologies ....” They are ‘differing’ because they are not
both, “chronologies”.
At best, the story in chapters 2-3
is the ‘chronology-movie’ rolled back— ‘reversed’— so that the events are
‘re-viewed’ one by one from the last to the first— from the creation of man, to
the creation of animals, to the creation of plants.
“The LORD God planted a garden
EASTWARD” 2:8. The heavenly bodies ruled over direction and time on earth.
The creation of the heavenly bodies and the heaven and the earth are everything
implied as had they been created already.
But, if this chapter followed chronological order as you explain it,
Cobra, “man (7) was created first, before any plants (8-9), and then animals (19)”, or, “Genesis 1 clearly has the
earth bringing forth vegetation, and God seeing it and declaring it good, on
Day 3. Genesis 2 has man created before any plants or animals”— man had to have
been created before the heavenly bodies and before the earth.
Then Cobra, you will have to admit
Gene is right, that the souls of men were created before their bodies were.
Which you two may believe, appreciating these ‘chronologies’ so ‘spiritually’. I won’t.
Cobra:
“The "had formed" attempt to reconcile the passages was dealt with earlier.”
GE:
I unfortunately did not attend. Would you mind to explain again a bit to me?
Cobra:
“I understand the desire to view these both as
literal chronologies, and I appreciate the strained attempts to make them
match, ....”
GE:
No, wait a bit, dear Cobra; wait a
bit. It is you, not us, who ‘desire to view these both
as literal chronologies’, with the emphasis on
“chronologies”. To my view,
chapter one by its nature is a “chronology” that deals with the
first six days consecutively. Chapters 2
and 3 have chronologically so to speak come to a standstill on the Seventh Day
with only indirect references of interest back to certain events FROM THE FIRST
STORY that without the least ‘strain’, and perfectly and
naturally, ‘match’. They match
‘historically’, not so much ‘chronologically’. <‘Historically’, from
‘history’, from Latin, ‘historia’, from Greek: ‘enquiry’, ‘historein’ to
‘narrate’, from ‘histor’, ‘judge’.> Collins English Dictionary.
I have said before Genesis is a
compilation of ‘stories’, <from Anglo-French, ‘estorie’, from Latin
‘historia’> Ibid. In other words, in TRUTH chapters 1 to 3 are
in perfect agreement, both historically and chronologically; one must only
apply the ‘just’ method of ‘enquiry’— and not measure it against every
premeditated and pre-concluded whim of unbelief for ‘judging’ its historicity
and verity.
If you want to see “strained attempts” to make “the passage” of the stories of
Genesis 1 to 3 seem “a contradiction”, look at
yours! E.g. ....
Cobra:
“despite
the fact that the Genesis 2 account says man was made before plants (which
happened in the Genesis 1 account on day 3) and man was alone so God made
animals and the animals weren't suitable so God made woman.
It does not say God paraded already formed animals before Adam, although some
translations chose to try to reconcile the two creation stories by inserting
"had" in English. Of course, this did not address the plants and they
found no way to do a fanciful attempt at reconciling that part of the text.”
GE:
Now I am already beginning to see your above clever remarks about “The "had formed" attempt to reconcile the passages.” And I have seen enough .... you have no answer to it; so you can only sneer at it. No, as I have said, look at your fanciful parade of attempts “to deny what the text actually says” from the perspective of faith.
Cobra:
“But if you are dedicated to the view that both the creation stories must be taken literally, then the only option is to deny what they literally say. People wedded to that view will close their eyes to the actual words.”
GE:
Actually, if one takes the view
the creation stories are TRUE irrespective of whether they are literal or
poetical or symbolic or whatever learned description of the point or angle of
approach to the literary characteristics of the passage / passages, one will
inevitably come to the conclusion they are fairly ‘literal’, and absolutely
trustworthy, and beyond attacks of being unbelievable and even wickedly
misleading. But people wedded to their
own critical views will close their eyes to the complex intricacies yet
marvellous simplicity and clarity of the creation anecdotes.
Cobra:
“GE quotes another with:
That in reality they had been made PRIOR to the creation of man is so
ENTIRELY APPARENT from chapter one as not to require explanation
GE, I think this is the source of your denial of the text starting in Genesis 2:4.
You have forced the second creation story to match the chronology of the first,
and this requires a denial of what the text says.”
GE:
No, Cobra, I do not ‘deny’ “the text starting in
Genesis 2:4”.
Just look at your own pre-concluded supposition, “the text STARTING in
Genesis 2:4”!
It is no separate “text STARTING in Genesis 2:4”; it
is the SAME STORY CONTINUED in Genesis 2:4. There are no different or differing “chronologies”, “the chronology of the
first (text)”, and “the chronology of the second creation story”. There is NO, “second creation story”, as I have explained over and over. The source of your denial of the fact, is your preconceived thesis of
contradiction in Genesis. You do not get
anything from the ‘text’ for your allegations; you bring your allegations TO
the ‘text’.
You force contradiction in both
the creation stories and say, voila: contradiction! .... and this requires a
denial of WHAT the text says and HOW the text says it and WHY the text says
it. You deny two (or more)
creation-STORIES; you “force” them into ONE,
CONTRADICTING creation-“CHRONOLOGY”. That’s your error, Cobra!
[By the buy, the Seventh-day
Adventists have banned me from spreading my ‘heresies’ among them, this
‘theory’ of mine, being one of my main offences in their eyes— my ‘theory’
Genesis 2 and 3 are the continuation of the history of the Seventh Day of
creation’s events, and not a repetition or parallel or replica of the creation
saga or its chronology.]
Cobra:
“GE writes:
Form and style tell a story of their own definitely not time-bound in the
smallest possible of detail like in the case of Cobra’s little word “so” in the
““NRSV””; nevertheless still ‘time-bound’ in the greater context of the Seventh
Day Sabbath of the text.
Yes, form and style is important. But it is more than "so." Look
again, as I highlight chronological words:
In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 when
no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the
field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to
rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; 6 but a stream
would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— 7 then
the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. 8 And the Lord
God planted a garden in
GE:
Dear Cobra, let us just look at
your saying, “Look
again, as I highlight chronological words: .... In the day that
the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 when no plant of
the field was yet in the earth....”.
Of course it is no ‘chronology’. The day in which God created the earth and
the heavens was not the day “when” He made the plants. This is an explanation of a real chronology
referred to; it is obvious the author of this story constantly had the first saga
in the back of his mind as he is constantly referring back to it: “no herb of the field had yet
sprung up—for the Lord God had not (yet) caused it to
rain upon the earth, and there was no one (yet) to till the
ground.”
The reference is to when “In the beginning God made ....”, UP TO
and including the Seventh Day. In other words, this quoted passage of yours is
an “enquiring” summary, a condensed history, of the chronologies of the genesis
of everything by creating act of God. It
no longer is that chronology; the chronology had been completed in 1:1 to 2:4a.
From 2:4b it is the creation story expanded on. But first, by way of reviewing
– ‘recapping’ – the situation as up to Genesis 2:4a, is summed up, which
summary then is used to serve as introduction for and ‘heading’ or ‘caption’ of
the remainder of the story that follows in the rest of the text until
3:24.
All the Conjunctives, “in the day
that”, “then”, “when”, “yet”, “so”, are referencing / referring / referential
Adverbs or ‘Relative Adverbs’, TO, real ‘chronology’ that consists of Numerals
in the first story, “it was the First Day” etc. until “God the Seventh Day
rested”. It is quite a difference – it
is a characteristic difference between ‘chronology’ and ‘relating / narrating /
referring / recounting’. Both ‘stories’,
are historical, that is, are virtually literal, yet fully the truth. But not both are ‘chronological’, that is,
are numbering, are actually counting, are sequentially, fact. Only the first story is ‘chronological’, that
is, is numbering days, is actually counting days, is sequentially, fact. (The OPPOSITE of what you maintain.)
I repeat, the ‘second creation
saga / story’ is neither the same, nor another, and contradicting, ‘chronology’
of the ‘first creation saga / story’.
Cobra:
“I do not claim this is based on a little word
"so." The entire text is chronological, with cause and effect (e.g.,
man is alone so God creates animals...)
It's
not just "so," but when and then and yet -- And look, God said
"It is not good for man to be alone; I will make him a
helper." Then God made the animals. Man was there and God said I will
make, so He made the animals but they were not suitable.
I
agree form is important. Genesis 1 looks like poetry to me. Genesis 2 is, as is
evident from the words I highlighted above, clearly a chronological
presentation. To deny that is to deny the text.”
GE:
“E.g., man is alone so God creates animals...” IS NOT “cause and effect”; it is anecdote, ‘story’, ‘story telling’. It
is ‘Style’ and ‘Form’. Haven’t you been
told stories? TRUE stories? “.... and so .... and yet .... then .... now
.... that day ....” and words like these ABOUNDING! On TV, on radio , “you know .... you know
.... in fact .... in fact ....”, Adverbs galore! That spells: ‘Story’, ‘telling’. It was a human being or human beings who
wrote Genesis: ‘The Story of Beginnings’.
Genesis 1 and 2 are poetry but no
less historical and true ‘telling’ for it. The great masters in story-telling
are poets, often.
And from the words you have
highlighted above, Genesis 2 is clearly NOT “a chronological presentation”. Or ja, it definitely is, “a chronological presentation”! A chronological
presentation-to-Genesis-1; a
to-Genesis-1-REFER-ring ‘presentation’; a ‘presentation ‘— ‘RE-presentation’— no difference, “a chronological
presentation” is not the ‘chronology’ as such
or the ‘chronology’ replicated.
Cobra:
“The declaration that Genesis 1 and 2 must be
taken literally is not only a distraction from the true work of the gospel, but
it is an internally inconsistent position.
GE:
I’ll skip ....
Cobra:
“But if you are dedicated to the view that
both the creation stories must be taken literally, then the only option is to
deny what they literally say. People wedded to that view will close their eyes
to the actual words.”
GE:
Yes; you have said it before.
Cobra:
“But I ask you to look at it this way:
Imagine you only had the Genesis 2 account.
Imagine that the Genesis 1 account did not exist.
And read the Genesis 2 account that way.
An honest reading of the Genesis 2 account by a person who believes it should
be taken literally results in certainty that man was created first, before any
plants, and then animals so man would not be alone, then Eve.”
GE:
Truth is I have BOTH stories; I
have the one Bible. I have the FULL ‘account’. I need ‘imagine’, nothing.
Cobra:
“.... I think the fixation on bara is really a
rabbit trail (that is, it is off the topic of the differing chronologies).”
GE:
Yes; as long as it is not a fixation against Cobra’s chronology.
Easy.
Cobra:
“There are many words and a presentation of
cause and effect that demonstrate Genesis 2:4 begins a chronological telling of
creation in which the order of events differs from the order found in Genesis
1. There is no single word or translation of a word on which this fact relies.”
GE:
“....this fact”, but “There is no single word or translation of a word on which this
fact relies”? I take it you actually meant vice
versa.
Which ‘fact’? “.... words and a presentation
of cause and effect that demonstrate Genesis 2:4 begins a chronological telling
of creation ....”. It’s no ‘fact’; it is
your supposition and assumption — MERELY, that “There are many words and a presentation of
cause and effect that demonstrate Genesis 2:4 begins a chronological telling of
creation”. You take your assumption for proof
of your supposition and you supposition for proof of your assumption— ‘circular
thinking’ ....
I have every right you have for
saying “There
are many words and a presentation of cause and effect that demonstrate Genesis
2:4 begins a chronological telling
of creation”, to say, ‘There are many words
and presentations of cause and effect that demonstrate Genesis 2:4 begins a continuation
of the creation saga without following any chronological sequence but, for some
incidental references to the foregoing chronological telling of creation in chapter one.’ In
fact, you have failed to present any justification for claiming, “There are many words and a
presentation of cause and effect that demonstrate Genesis 2:4 begins a chronological telling of creation”.
The Bible may contain
contradictions; but never such a glaring and totally irreconcilable
discrepancy: two directly opposites, side by side in its opening pages. Just
not acceptable.
And for what good could it be
acceptable?
Cobra:
“There are people who want to use science to
show that we should not take Genesis 1 and 2 literally. But science is not
required. Simply comparing Genesis 2 to Genesis 1 makes it clear at least one
of the two stories cannot be taken literally. I think the fact that both
stories are in the Bible can be taken as an indication God is revealing they
are not to be taken literally. They have spiritual meaning.”
GE:
The crux of the matter is, I
believe, that there are some people who don’t even realise they invite science
to be the judge of the Bible; who simply cannot be content with letting the
Bible be its own interpreter and judge.
Look at your conclusion, Cobra. You started out with insisting on
consistent literalness; you ended up pleading for “spiritual meaning” for both ‘chronologies’. Why? Because you will rather see they
contradict one another, than have them contradict science or the philosophy of
so called ‘science’. Now I don’t care
how exact the ‘science’ or ‘philosophy’ supposed; they don’t matter because
they don’t apply as measure or science pertaining the Scriptures. I don’t care WHO is ‘right’, ‘science’, or,
the Bible, if the standard of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ for testing the Bible’s
correctness, is not the Bible ITSELF. So
the implications with regard to any attempted correlation between ‘Bible’ and
‘science’ leaves me cold; is born still.
I want to know what in the Bible “according to the Scriptures”, is true
and Truth. Not according to anything else.
In fact, if the Truth of the
Bible, it must be “the foolishness of God”; if ‘Truth’ by any semblance
of “the wisdom of the world”, “the foolishness of God is wiser”.
That does NOT mean I take the two
stories not for literal! As strictly as
I take them for ‘spiritual’, as strictly do I take them for literal—
‘spiritual’ AND ‘literal’ FOR THE ‘STORIES’ THEY ARE! And the first ‘story’ – Genesis 1 – is a true
story-of-chronology— of Divine creation; and the second ‘story’ – Genesis 2 to
3 – is a true story-of-history— of human events.
What have I gained won I the world
and all its wisdom, but lost the Pearl of Great Value, Jesus Christ --- even in
the stories of Genesis 1 to 3?
I for one – for the Mr Nobody I am
– will not boast through science that we should not take Genesis 1 and 2 literally. We should take Genesis 1 and 2 literally for what the
Bible is worth. If ever science or the
world would approve of what the Bible teaches, I will know I was beguiled of my
reward. I think you know how impossible that is.
17 November 2009
Gerhard Ebersöhn
Private Bag X43
Sunninghill 2157
http://www.biblestudents.co.za