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.
Cobra:
“GE wrote: “You started out with insisting on
consistent literalness”. I don't think so.
What I meant to demonstrate is that those who insist reading Genesis 1 as a
literal chronology of the events of creation must face the fact (if they are
willing to read what Genesis 2 says) that Genesis 2 has a different chronology.
And I ask, how do those who insist on the literal reading of the Genesis 1
chronology know that it is Genesis 1, not Genesis 2, which gives the literal
chronology?
I am not insisting on consistent literalness -- because that is impossible.
Genesis 2 has man created before plants and animals in the day God created the
heavens and the earth; that chronology will never be consistent with the
chronology of Genesis 1.”
GE:
I cannot help to get the impression you DO insist on 'consistent literalness',
saying, “Genesis 2 has man created before plants and animals in the day God
created the heavens and the earth; that chronology will never be consistent
with the chronology of Genesis 1.”
However, try and see my point, and see literalness for real in different categories
or kinds or types of literature that makes ALL the real difference between them
without causing any contradiction. The literalness of the first chapter is it's
chronology - its history of days; the literalness of the two following chapters
is its story - its history of events, ALL the actual events of the ONE day --
with REFERENCES made retrospectively to some events of the first six days --
WITHOUT contradiction.
The division between the two histories is easily seen. It lies between 2:4a and
4b. Read my articles 'Days of Genesis' (1 Afrikaans, 1 English).
Your opinion of irreconcilability is NOVEL. I have consulted quite a number of
commentaries. The viewpoint the stories are opposed received much more
attention since the 'sources' controversies erupted since the 1950’s more or
less. But of course, there must be thousands more of commentaries out there.
Those I had available were all 'orthodox'.
But the 'data' remains what it is or are: only the references from chapter 2,
which I gave attention to 1 x 1, and could find NO contradiction unless I hung
backwards over the rest of my chair and read upside down and backwards through
my skull.
17
November 2009
Gerhard Ebersöhn
Private Bag X43
Sunninghill 2157
http://www.biblestudents.co.za