Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Failte · 06-24-2011, 02:03 PM

Ah, see? I 'misunderstood' again. What a convenient argument. Covers all the bases, no muss, no fuss.

No, the grammar is not misunderstood here in the slightest. Your interpretation of the verses is faulty and biased to support your preconceived notion that the bible cannot be contradictory.

The verse does not in any way imply that they were done before Adam was created. They do imply a sequence, which when read with 2:18 show that god realized that adam shouldn't be alone and then created the animals for him to name. Animals after Adam.

The texts say a very different thing than you claim they do. If you don't start out with an assumed conclusion that it must be true it's clear how disjointed and contradictory the passages are.

There is no way to make the two genesis accounts match. They have a different sequence entirely. Two stories, knit together. It's even clear by the way they refer to god in the passages.

Although, what difference does it make unless you are literalist? Do you actually believe that the genesis account is literally true?

simon kole · 06-24-2011, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Failte

Which were created first? Adam (and possibly eve) or the animals? What "could have beens" must you invoke to reconcile the two genesis accounts?

I assume you are referring to Ge 2:19.

In the general account of the whole creation, in Ge 1:24-25 the animals were created before Adam and Eve.

In the specific account of the creation of Adam and Eve, Ge 2:19 says,

"Now the Lord had formed (completed past action) out of the ground all the beasts of the field. . ."

That is a mistranslation of the Hebrew.

And yet Hebrew scholars translated it that way.

Quote:

The Hebrew says 'v'y'tzar,' lit. "and he is forming." The Masoretic Bible translates it accurately as "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them . . ."

The verb tense in Hebrew is present. It is exactly the same tense used in verse 9, "and out of the ground v'yatzmakh (and he is causing to sprout) the Lord God every tree . . . "

The exact same word, v'yatzar, is used in verse 7, "and the LORD God formed man . . ."

The Creation story which begins with Genesis 1:1 and ends with Genesis 2:3 differs from the story which begins in Genesis 2:4 and ends with Genesis 2:25 in a number of significant ways.

- The first story has the Creating being done by Elohim. YHWH is not mentioned anywhere.

Is he a different God?

Quote:

- In the first story, Elohim "creates" (boreh) the heavens and the Earth ex nihilo, and then uses the materials to "make" (la'asot) the plants and animals and humans.
- In the first story, Elohim talks to himselfs in plural form.

Isn't that normal usage of the noun in the OT when referring to the one true God?

Quote:

- In the second story, all the actions are performed by YHWH Elohim.
- In the second story, YHWH Elohim does not create (boreh) the heavens and the Earth, he "makes" (la'asot) them, a verb which is never used for ex nihilo creation.

Three different words are used in the accounts: make, create, form.

Quote:

- In the second story, YHWH Elohim causes the plants to sprout, then forms Adam, and then forms the animals and brings them to Adam to name.

That is not what is in the texts I have. Plants had not yet appeared or sprung up when God formed Adam.

Quote:

- In the second story, YHWH Elohim is always singular, suggesting a possible individual member of a pantheon.

Is God part of a pantheon everywhere else the term is used in the OT?

Quote:

The two stories are at odds. Deliberate translation errors which pretend to "fix" this problem only serve to show how far Christians will go to pretend there are no contradictions in the Bible.

Failte · 06-24-2011, 02:18 PM

Quote:

That is not what is in the texts I have. Plants had not yet appeared or sprung up when God formed Adam

Only in one version of the story, Gen 1 has plants around three days before adam showed up.

1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

and then, after creating the sun and moon on the fourth day (how did we have plants without an actual sun and moon is up for grabs, I guess) and all the animals in the sea, in the air and on the land on the fifth day, he finally got around to making man.

So, day 3: plants and day 5: animals, and day 6: humans, according to Gen. 1.

Gen. 2 is quite different. No plants until Adam was plopped down into the garden of eden. No animals, either.

Both can't be literally true. Unless you have special god-glasses to read it, I guess. How have I 'misunderstood' these passages?

schriverja · 06-24-2011, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

No, it does not.

There is no mention of God in the entire Book of Esther.

The Book of Ecclesiastes says very clearly that it was not authored by God.

Both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts claim human authorship.

Even in the Prophetic books, there are clear delineations between "thus saith the Lord" and mere human writings.

That Timothy 2 says "all scripture is god breathed" is NOT the same as "the Bible" claiming divine authorship. It is a LETTER, written by a HUMAN, which was added to the Biblical collection by other HUMANS. So what we have is a single letter making a very vague claim (what is meant by "all scripture?") which has been appended to an anthology of Jewish sacred writings.

And yet Paul states very clearly, "All Scripture is God-breathed."
There is no denying he was referring to what was accepted by the Jews at the time as Sacred Scriptrue,
including the Prophets' writings where it did not say "thus saith the Lord."

Which texts were considered Sacred Scripture to Jews at that time? According to this, the canon was still the subject of controversy until the end of the first century C.E., after Paul was said to have written this particular verse*.

edit: you seemed to have missed my post #113. From there: There are boatloads of texts referred to within the Bible that never made it into the canon. Check it out for yourself. Are the books referenced (such as the Book of Enoch) God-breathed or no? Paul doesn't really say, does he?

<snipped>

*acknowledging the fact that there is strong evidence that have led scholars to conclude this letter wasn't actually written by Paul.

OLDMAN · 06-24-2011, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Failte

Quote:

That is not what is in the texts I have. Plants had not yet appeared or sprung up when God formed Adam

Only in one version of the story, Gen 1 has plants around three days before adam showed up.

1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

and then, after creating the sun and moon on the fourth day (how did we have plants without an actual sun and moon is up for grabs, I guess) and all the animals in the sea, in the air and on the land on the fifth day, he finally got around to making man.

So, day 3: plants and day 5: animals, and day 6: humans, according to Gen. 1.

Gen. 2 is quite different. No plants until Adam was plopped down into the garden of eden. No animals, either.

Both can't be literally true. Unless you have special god-glasses to read it, I guess. How have I 'misunderstood' these passages?

LoL, have you checked all the other planets? I have a feeling Christians are saving the two Genisis for another day.....

dockeen · 06-24-2011, 06:12 PM

Quote:

*acknowledging the fact that there is strong evidence that have led scholars to conclude this letter wasn't actually written by Paul.

I get the forgery angles mixed up between 2 Peter and 2 Timothy...

schriverja · 06-24-2011, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dockeen

Quote:

*acknowledging the fact that there is strong evidence that have led scholars to conclude this letter wasn't actually written by Paul.

I get the forgery angles mixed up between 2 Peter and 2 Timothy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_E...hy#Composition

Davka · 06-24-2011, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

That's what the grammar says.

Not in Hebrew it doesn't.

The original scripture has two conflicting creation myths.

Davka · 06-24-2011, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon kole

Quote:

Originally Posted by Failte

Which were created first? Adam (and possibly eve) or the animals? What "could have beens" must you invoke to reconcile the two genesis accounts?

I assume you are referring to Ge 2:19.

In the general account of the whole creation, in Ge 1:24-25 the animals were created before Adam and Eve.

In the specific account of the creation of Adam and Eve, Ge 2:19 says,

"Now the Lord had formed (completed past action) out of the ground all the beasts of the field. . ."

That is a mistranslation of the Hebrew.

And yet Hebrew scholars translated it that way.

Only the Christian ones. And only a few of them. The most accepted traditional translations agree with the Masoretic text.

New American Standard (considered by most Christian scholars to be the most accurate translation) says "Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them."

King James says "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them."

American Standard says "And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the heavens; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them."

Quote:

The Creation story which begins with Genesis 1:1 and ends with Genesis 2:3 differs from the story which begins in Genesis 2:4 and ends with Genesis 2:25 in a number of significant ways.

- The first story has the Creating being done by Elohim. YHWH is not mentioned anywhere.

Is he a different God?

According to pre-Biblical stories, yes. El is the father of YHWH, who is the husband of Ashtorah.

Quote:

- In the first story, Elohim "creates" (boreh) the heavens and the Earth ex nihilo, and then uses the materials to "make" (la'asot) the plants and animals and humans.
- In the first story, Elohim talks to himselfs in plural form.

Isn't that normal usage of the noun in the OT when referring to the one true God?

The "one true god," usually rendered LORD or Jehovah in English, is YHWH. That is a singular noun - unlike "elohim," which literally means "gods." Elohim is the word used when speaking of YHWH elohim, but also when speaking of the gods of other nations. It is a generic plural word. The singular is El.

Quote:

- In the second story, all the actions are performed by YHWH Elohim.
- In the second story, YHWH Elohim does not create (boreh) the heavens and the Earth, he "makes" (la'asot) them, a verb which is never used for ex nihilo creation.

Three different words are used in the accounts: make, create, form.

Um - yeah. That's what I just said.

Quote:

- In the second story, YHWH Elohim causes the plants to sprout, then forms Adam, and then forms the animals and brings them to Adam to name.

That is not what is in the texts I have. Plants had not yet appeared or sprung up when God formed Adam.

My mistake. Yes, in the second creation story, God made Adam first, then the plants, then the animals. In the first creation story, God made the plants, then the animals, then Adam.

Quote:

- In the second story, YHWH Elohim is always singular, suggesting a possible individual member of a pantheon.

Is God part of a pantheon everywhere else the term is used in the OT?

Not everywhere. But in some places, there are hints of the original religion from which Judaism sprang.

The two stories are at odds. Deliberate translation errors which pretend to "fix" this problem only serve to show how far Christians will go to pretend there are no contradictions in the Bible.

dockeen · 06-24-2011, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Quote:

Originally Posted by dockeen

I get the forgery angles mixed up between 2 Peter and 2 Timothy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_E...hy#Composition

Yep, I went back and looked it up as well. Thanks. Guess it's just old-timers disease.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-24-2011, 02:03 PM	#131
Failte Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,405	Ah, see? I 'misunderstood' again. What a convenient argument. Covers all the bases, no muss, no fuss. No, the grammar is not misunderstood here in the slightest. Your interpretation of the verses is faulty and biased to support your preconceived notion that the bible cannot be contradictory. The verse does not in any way imply that they were done before Adam was created. They do imply a sequence, which when read with 2:18 show that god realized that adam shouldn't be alone and then created the animals for him to name. Animals after Adam. The texts say a very different thing than you claim they do. If you don't start out with an assumed conclusion that it must be true it's clear how disjointed and contradictory the passages are. There is no way to make the two genesis accounts match. They have a different sequence entirely. Two stories, knit together. It's even clear by the way they refer to god in the passages. Although, what difference does it make unless you are literalist? Do you actually believe that the genesis account is literally true?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.