FRIHOST • FORUMS • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • DIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

Genesis in the spotlight..2

   Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion
 


Bikerman
Chapter 2.

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
So, from Chapter 1 God has already created insects, cattle, sea life, man, woman etc.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Fair enough - health and safety legislation would indicate a break was needed.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Well, we all like our days off.
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Don't really get this bit...but onwards..
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
So the trees and grasses existed as seeds up to this point...OK, but this contradicts Genesis 1..odd but let's go with it.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
OK so now we get rain. After the trees and grasses and herbs...odd because this again contradicts Genesis 1...but let's progress...
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Now I thought that he created man and woman on day 6 in Genesis 1 ?
8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
OK..so this 'other' man is put in a garden. Presumably the previous men and women were not the 'chosen people' but this 'Adam' is?
9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
So we have an orchard.
10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
OK - an early example of irrigation.
11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
So the river Pison surrounds Havilah and Havilah is mineral rich...OK...
12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
So we have Gold, Gum trees and onyx..OK..
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
Hmm...this is a problem
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
This is presumably the Tigris and Euphrates.
15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
So Adam is in fact a tennant farmer or serf?
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Vegan?
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Hmm...remember this threat for later - it will prove to be a lie.
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
But he already created man and woman in Genesis 1 so presumably this is a 'chosen' woman?
19 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: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
So these would be different to the animals already created in Genesis 1? How long did it take Adam to name them all, I wonder, given that there are several million species...?
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Internet dating? Oops...a bit early for that...
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
An early example of abdominoplasty? Perhaps this is where Cher got the idea?
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
So here we have the first clone? Genetically modified 'sex-wise'...
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Incest? Tricky point of ethics here...
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
What father and mother would that be?
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Early naturists?
MeddlingMonk
Without going into the whole science vs. religion argument.... I think you may have misinterpreted a few points (no offense intended). I'll try to explain some of the verses you say contradict, etc.

Quote:
2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Don't really get this bit...but onwards..


Generally, where the Bible says something along the lines of "These are the generations" it is an account of something that has already happened at that stage (for example, recounting a family tree up to the context time in which the events are taking place).

Quote:
2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
So the trees and grasses existed as seeds up to this point...OK, but this contradicts Genesis 1..odd but let's go with it.


Let's have a look again at Genesis 1...

Quote:
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.


I'm afraid I fail to see how Chapter 2v5 contradicts 1v11-12.... 2:5 is describing what was before there was rain and before there was man to till the ground. As for the "seeds", well, in 1:11-12 you have the grass, herbs, etc. coming out of the ground, as they would from seeds.

Quote:
2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
OK so now we get rain. After the trees and grasses and herbs...odd because this again contradicts Genesis 1...but let's progress...


Once again, I fail to see the contradiction.... also, it does not specifically say "rain" - only "mist". It may be referring to dew. Also, once God had brought forth the plants from the ground, He would have set up a way to water them (hence the mist). So the plants don't necessarily have to come after the mist.

Quote:
2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Now I thought that he created man and woman on day 6 in Genesis 1?


According to Genesis 1, man and woman were created on Day 6. As per Chapter 2v4, this is now accounting events that have already occurred (in other words, now accounting further detail in regards to Eden, etc.).

Quote:
2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
2:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
2:11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
2:12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
2:13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
Hmm...this is a problem.


I assume you're referring to the fact that Ethiopia is mentioned here (where Eden is assumed to have been somewhere in the Middle East, present-day Ethiopia is in Africa). A possible explanation (but not the only one) is the Flood (flip a few chapters further into Genesis). The Flood reshaped the world. Obviously, any lands given names before the Flood would not exist today. So the Ethiopia referred to here could not be the present-day Ethiopia. This also means that any rivers mentioned here are also not the same rivers as their modern-day namesakes.

Quote:
2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Vegan?


If you investigate further you'll find that there was no death before the Fall (Adam and Eve's sin) and death is a result of that sin. So there would have been no killing animals and eating of meat before the Fall.

Quote:
2:19 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: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
So these would be different to the animals already created in Genesis 1? How long did it take Adam to name them all, I wonder, given that there are several million species...?


These animals were specifically in or near the Garden of Eden (and created on Day 6, presumably). It would have taken Adam a long time to name them all, but not as long as if you had to repeat the task today. The large range of variation in each "kind" of animal (i.e. dog) did not exist at that time (there wasn't any breeding to produce a dog with specific traits), so Adam probably only had to name a handful of types of cat, dog, horse, etc. for each "kind" of animal, not dozens or hundreds.

Quote:
2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
So here we have the first clone? Genetically modified 'sex-wise'...
2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Incest? Tricky point of ethics here...


Clone? Realistically, we have no idea what God did to the DNA.... As for incest, that wasn't labelled a sin until much later, as at the time there weren't DNA defects (it was a perfect Creation) and God would have ensured that there was sufficient genetic diversity.

Quote:
2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
What father and mother would that be?


I think the historical narrative got interrupted there for a moment with a "moral of the story" comment... this was written after the initial Creation, so the intended reader would have parents.

Hopefully this is of use.... Let me know if I've made any glaring errors.

Kind Regards,
The Meddling Monk
Bikerman
MeddlingMonk wrote:
Without going into the whole science vs. religion argument.... I think you may have misinterpreted a few points (no offense intended). I'll try to explain some of the verses you say contradict, etc.
No offense taken.
Quote:
Generally, where the Bible says something along the lines of "These are the generations" it is an account of something that has already happened at that stage (for example, recounting a family tree up to the context time in which the events are taking place).
...err...ok...so Genesis 2 is a recap of Genesis 1?
Quote:
Once again, I fail to see the contradiction.... also, it does not specifically say "rain" - only "mist". It may be referring to dew. Also, once God had brought forth the plants from the ground, He would have set up a way to water them (hence the mist). So the plants don't necessarily have to come after the mist.
I think you will find that no seeds will sprout in the absence of water. Try planting seeds in dry sand (it cannot have been soil at this stage, since soil requires decomposed plant matter)...
Quote:
I assume you're referring to the fact that Ethiopia is mentioned here (where Eden is assumed to have been somewhere in the Middle East, present-day Ethiopia is in Africa). A possible explanation (but not the only one) is the Flood (flip a few chapters further into Genesis). The Flood reshaped the world. Obviously, any lands given names before the Flood would not exist today. So the Ethiopia referred to here could not be the present-day Ethiopia. This also means that any rivers mentioned here are also not the same rivers as their modern-day namesakes.
Err...that's a rather large stretch of the imagination (especially since there is no evidence of any such flood)...
Quote:
If you investigate further you'll find that there was no death before the Fall (Adam and Eve's sin) and death is a result of that sin. So there would have been no killing animals and eating of meat before the Fall.
Can you tell me where in Genesis this is stated?
Quote:
These animals were specifically in or near the Garden of Eden (and created on Day 6, presumably). It would have taken Adam a long time to name them all, but not as long as if you had to repeat the task today. The large range of variation in each "kind" of animal (i.e. dog) did not exist at that time (there wasn't any breeding to produce a dog with specific traits), so Adam probably only had to name a handful of types of cat, dog, horse, etc. for each "kind" of animal, not dozens or hundreds.
But the passage says that God brought EVERY beast of the field and EVERY fowl of the air - it doesn't say that he brought a small local subset. Now, even if we disallow sub-species (which is a big ask, since many people who support the Genesis account believe that evolution is a lie) then we still have a huge number of birds and 'beasts' to name. Just the birds alone would have taken a long time (10,000 species) and the mammals (4500 species). We don't seem to have any mention of the insects and microscopic lifeforms (bacteria, viruses etc) although insects seem to be mentioned in Genesis 1 (creeping thing) being created at the same time as the rest of the beasts...
Quote:
Clone? Realistically, we have no idea what God did to the DNA.... As for incest, that wasn't labelled a sin until much later, as at the time there weren't DNA defects (it was a perfect Creation) and God would have ensured that there was sufficient genetic diversity.
Well why use a rib if not to duplicate DNA - why not simply create new DNA? The only way God could ensure sufficient genetic diversity would be to continually intervene until a viable population was 'bred'...
MeddlingMonk
Ok - I can see where you're coming from. I'll try to answer your comments.

Quote:
...err...ok...so Genesis 2 is a recap of Genesis 1?


Pretty much, with added detail.

Quote:
I think you will find that no seeds will sprout in the absence of water. Try planting seeds in dry sand (it cannot have been soil at this stage, since soil requires decomposed plant matter)...


True, seeds won't sprout in the absence of water. However, once again, we don't actually know the specific condition of the "earth" in which they sprouted. God could have made it moist, fertile soil. Equally, He could have made them grow supernaturally (since there were trees in the Garden of Eden, some supernatural intervention in the growth/life cycle of the plants was required).

Quote:
Err...that's a rather large stretch of the imagination (especially since there is no evidence of any such flood)...


I was merely commenting that the narrative itself was not contradictory here. Chapters 7 and 8 of Genesis describe the Flood, so in the context of the narrative, this isn't a problem. As for evidence, that's going into the science vs. religion argument, which I'd rather not do.

Quote:
Can you tell me where in Genesis this is stated?


The Fall occurs in Genesis Chapter 3. It is not directly stated in the first few chapters of Genesis that there was no killing, but as Adam and Eve did not disobey God until the Fall (and this was in relation to eating the forbidden fruit), it is logical that they only consumed the fruit of the rest of the garden, as God said they could in 2v16. It is also stated elsewhere in the Bible (Romans) that death was the wages of sin and hence wasn't introduced until after the Fall.

Quote:
But the passage says that God brought EVERY beast of the field and EVERY fowl of the air - it doesn't say that he brought a small local subset. Now, even if we disallow sub-species (which is a big ask, since many people who support the Genesis account believe that evolution is a lie) then we still have a huge number of birds and 'beasts' to name. Just the birds alone would have taken a long time (10,000 species) and the mammals (4500 species). We don't seem to have any mention of the insects and microscopic lifeforms (bacteria, viruses etc) although insects seem to be mentioned in Genesis 1 (creeping thing) being created at the same time as the rest of the beasts...


I have no doubt that this took Adam quite some time. Nor was I implying that God only brought a local subset - the passage indicates that He created "every beast of the field and every fowl of the air" at Eden as well, probably so that Adam didn't have to travel far to name them. He may not have given each variety within each kind specific names, either - perhaps just a name for each kind (i.e. "cats" without defining lions, tigers, etc.).

Quote:
Well why use a rib if not to duplicate DNA - why not simply create new DNA? The only way God could ensure sufficient genetic diversity would be to continually intervene until a viable population was 'bred'...


Symbolism. Some things are done in the Bible as a symbol. In this case, taking Adam's rib and creating Eve from it is probably symbolic of woman completing man ("the two shall become one flesh"). Also, God wouldn't have needed to intervene more than just the first time when he took the rib - He could have easily ensured sufficient genetic variation first time around (and as there were no genetic faults at the time, a viable population could have been established from just Adam and Eve).

Kind Regards,
The Meddling Monk
Bikerman
MeddlingMonk wrote:
True, seeds won't sprout in the absence of water. However, once again, we don't actually know the specific condition of the "earth" in which they sprouted. God could have made it moist, fertile soil.
OK let's accept that.
Quote:
I was merely commenting that the narrative itself was not contradictory here. Chapters 7 and 8 of Genesis describe the Flood, so in the context of the narrative, this isn't a problem. As for evidence, that's going into the science vs. religion argument, which I'd rather not do.
Fair point - I'll put that objection aside.
Quote:
The Fall occurs in Genesis Chapter 3. It is not directly stated in the first few chapters of Genesis that there was no killing, but as Adam and Eve did not disobey God until the Fall (and this was in relation to eating the forbidden fruit), it is logical that they only consumed the fruit of the rest of the garden, as God said they could in 2v16. It is also stated elsewhere in the Bible (Romans) that death was the wages of sin and hence wasn't introduced until after the Fall.
But God specifically gave Adam dominion over the beasts of the field. It could be reasonably argued that this included using them for food (since I find it unlikely that the OT was written by vegetarians and we know the Jewish faith does not have a problem with (some) meat eating). There is also a clear distinction between man and beast so it is debatable whether slaughtering beasts would count as 'killing'....
Quote:
I have no doubt that this took Adam quite some time. Nor was I implying that God only brought a local subset - the passage indicates that He created "every beast of the field and every fowl of the air" at Eden as well, probably so that Adam didn't have to travel far to name them. He may not have given each variety within each kind specific names, either - perhaps just a name for each kind (i.e. "cats" without defining lions, tigers, etc.).
Hmm...possibly. Are we to assume that insects and microbial life was exempt? I guess so..
Quote:
Symbolism. Some things are done in the Bible as a symbol. In this case, taking Adam's rib and creating Eve from it is probably symbolic of woman completing man ("the two shall become one flesh"). Also, God wouldn't have needed to intervene more than just the first time when he took the rib - He could have easily ensured sufficient genetic variation first time around (and as there were no genetic faults at the time, a viable population could have been established from just Adam and Eve).
Symbolism is always a problem. Once you begin to interpret things symbolically then it is a short step to interpreting entire passages as metaphor and then where do you stop?
(Well, the answer is actually quite clear for most Christians - you interpret pretty much the whole thing as a metaphor Smile )
On genes - it depends what you define as a fault. Even if the DNA had been 'perfect' at the time of creation then it would not have remained so. Normal transcription errors and mutagenic environmental factors (cosmic rays, food etc) would come into play immediately.
MeddlingMonk
Quote:
But God specifically gave Adam dominion over the beasts of the field. It could be reasonably argued that this included using them for food (since I find it unlikely that the OT was written by vegetarians and we know the Jewish faith does not have a problem with (some) meat eating). There is also a clear distinction between man and beast so it is debatable whether slaughtering beasts would count as 'killing'....


Fair point. In this case, I would accept that you cannot say with absolute certainty from this passage that Adam and Eve did not consume meat. However, in my opinion, from the passage and others, they did not.


Quote:
Hmm...possibly. Are we to assume that insects and microbial life was exempt? I guess so..


Given that there would have been no way for Adam to perceive microbial life at the time, that probably would have been exempt. As for insects, the passage doesn't specifically say.


Quote:
Symbolism is always a problem. Once you begin to interpret things symbolically then it is a short step to interpreting entire passages as metaphor and then where do you stop?
(Well, the answer is actually quite clear for most Christians - you interpret pretty much the whole thing as a metaphor).


True - symbolism is a problem. If you want to avoid the symbolism, then one could say that it isn't clear from the passage why God chose to make Eve this way, only that He did. As for the interpretation of Genesis as a metaphor - you will find Christians who take it literally and those who don't. Given that there is no reason why God couldn't have created the world in the way described in Genesis (given His omnipotence and omniscience), Genesis should be approached at first in a literal way, not as a metaphor.

Quote:
On genes - it depends what you define as a fault. Even if the DNA had been 'perfect' at the time of creation then it would not have remained so. Normal transcription errors and mutagenic environmental factors (cosmic rays, food etc) would come into play immediately.


Hmm. You are right in that it wouldn't have remained perfect - however, the decay would only have begun after the Fall. Transcription errors would not have occurred in a perfect Creation; nor would there have been any DNA damage caused by environmental factors. It was only after the Fall, when sin was introduced, that the decay and harmful effects began to manifest themselves.

Kind Regards,
The Meddling Monk
Bikerman
Well, I have no problem with most of what you say but I have to take issue with the statement that there is no reason (given omniscience and omnipotence) that God could not have created the universe (world?) as per the Genesis account. The problem is, of course, that this would lead us into a scientific debate which I don't think is your intent...
Bikerman
MeddlingMonk wrote:
Hmm. You are right in that it wouldn't have remained perfect - however, the decay would only have begun after the Fall. Transcription errors would not have occurred in a perfect Creation; nor would there have been any DNA damage caused by environmental factors. It was only after the Fall, when sin was introduced, that the decay and harmful effects began to manifest themselves.
There is nothing specific in Genesis that says Adam was immortal. In fact in Genesis 2 God tells Adam that should he eat of the tree then he will die that same day (which he clearly doesn't do)...
Later we get
Quote:
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

But that does not imply that he would not have died anyway does it - it just sounds like he's telling Adam that he's going to have to work for a living.
Then we have Genesis 3:22
Quote:
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
One can interpret that as meaning that Adam (and Eve) were indeed mortal but God feared that they would eat from the tree of life (since they had already eaten from the tree of knowledge) and thus become immortal...
MeddlingMonk
Quote:
Well, I have no problem with most of what you say but I have to take issue with the statement that there is no reason (given omniscience and omnipotence) that God could not have created the universe (world?) as per the Genesis account. The problem is, of course, that this would lead us into a scientific debate which I don't think is your intent...


My apologies. Momentary slipup - should have said universe. Looking at it again, my statement there was a bit of a cop-out. I'll try to avoid that in the future.

Yes, you're right, I don't really want to get into an argument of science vs. religion.

Quote:
There is nothing specific in Genesis that says Adam was immortal. In fact in Genesis 2 God tells Adam that should he eat of the tree then he will die that same day (which he clearly doesn't do)...


It is not directly stated in Genesis itself that Adam was immortal. It is implied, by verses in Genesis, Romans and other passages, that Adam was immortal before the Fall. Upon eating of fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam became mortal and introduced sin and its effects into the whole of Creation. Where God tells Adam that he shall die, it can be interpreted two ways: 1) spiritual death - Adam would go from sinless to sinful and his close relationship/fellowship with God would die; 2) physical death - though Adam didn't die per se that very day, the process of "dying" began (cell death, transcription errors, ageing, etc. leading up to final death).

Quote:
But that does not imply that he would not have died anyway does it - it just sounds like he's telling Adam that he's going to have to work for a living.


God is telling Adam that because of his sin, he's now going to have to deal with toil and suffering and finally die. Likewise, He also tells Eve that she will now suffer pain during childbirth.

Quote:
One can interpret that as meaning that Adam (and Eve) were indeed mortal but God feared that they would eat from the tree of life (since they had already eaten from the tree of knowledge) and thus become immortal...


Upon taking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam and Eve would have become mortal, yes. The fruit of the Tree of Life would have ensured immortality. Since Adam and Eve had sinned, God couldn't let them regain immortality and escape the final consequence of sin - death. Hence why He threw them out of the Garden of Eden.

Kind Regards,
The Meddling Monk
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.