25 Jul 07
Originally posted by checkbaiterThe problem is that God notes that man is alone in Genesis 2:18 and
No, I think you are right. He created the animals first. Genesis 1 contains the order of events, Genesis 2 contains detail not given in Gensesis 1. I don't see a problem here.
strives to make a suitable partner for him, and begins making the animals.
In Genesis 2, the animals are made after.
Nemesio
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
25 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioThe NIV reads....
The problem is that God notes that man is alone in Genesis 2:18 and
strives to make a suitable partner for him, and begins making the animals.
In Genesis 2, the animals are made after.
Nemesio
Gen 2:19
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
(NIV)
Genesis 2 does not deal with order, and the woman was the companion...God who knows all was not experimenting..
25 Jul 07
Originally posted by checkbaiterRight: Now the Lord God formed... The 'had' doesn't exist in the Hebrew;
The NIV reads....
Gen 2:19
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
(NIV)
Genesis 2 does not deal with order, and the woman was the companion...God who knows all was not experimenting..
that is, the verb form used in the Hebrew is not the pluperfect you
suggest here, but the simple past. The 'now' emphasizes the temporality
of the event relative to the preceding text.
After all, God does note that man is alone. How could he have been
alone with all of creation beforehand?
Nemesio
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
25 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioIn his Exposition of Genesis, H.C. Leupold stated:
Right: Now the Lord God formed... The 'had' doesn't exist in the Hebrew;
that is, the verb form used in the Hebrew is not the pluperfect you
suggest here, but the simple past. The 'now' emphasizes the temporality
of the event relative to the preceding text.
After all, God does note that man is alone. How could he have been
alone with all of creation beforehand?
Nemesio
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. But the reminder that God had “molded” them makes obvious His power to bring them to man and so is quite appropriately mentioned here. 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 (1942, p. 130, emp. added).
Hebrew scholar Victor Hamilton agreed with Leupold’s assessment of Genesis 2:19 as he also recognized that “it is possible to translate formed as ‘had formed’ ” (1990, p. 176). Keil and Delitzsch stated in the first volume of their highly regarded Old Testament commentary that “our modern style for expressing the same thought [which the Holy Spirit, via Moses, intended to communicate—EL] would be simply this: ‘God brought to Adam the beasts which He had formed’ ” (1996, emp. added). Adding even more credence to this interpretation is the fact that the New International Version (NIV ) renders the verb in verse 19, not as simple past tense, but as a pluperfect: “Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air” (emp. added). Although Genesis chapters one and two agree even when yatsar is translated simply “formed” (as we will notice in the remainder of this article), it is important to note that the four Hebrew scholars mentioned above and the translators of the NIV , all believe that it could (or should) be rendered “had formed.” And, as Leupold acknowledged, those who deny this possibility do so (at least partly) because of their insistence on making the two chapters disagree.
The main reason that skeptics do not see harmony in the events recorded in the first two chapters of the Bible is because they fail to realize that Genesis 1 and 2 serve different purposes. Chapter one (including 2:1-4) focuses on the order of the creation events; chapter two (actually 2:5-25) simply provides more detailed information about some of the events mentioned in chapter one. Chapter two never was meant to be a chronological regurgitation of chapter one, but instead serves its own unique purpose—i.e., to develop in detail the more important features of the creation account, especially the creation of man and his surroundings. As Kenneth Kitchen noted in his book, Ancient Orient and the Old Testament:
from...http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/513
25 Jul 07
Originally posted by checkbaiterI'm sorry, I don't understand how that makes the original sin a choice for the XXth century human.
But what is not being said is what transpired through their disobedience.
Many think an apple was involved, but the bible does not say apple, it says fruit, which is symbolic. It does not tell us precisely what this fruit was. It also does not tell us in Genesis, all that transpired. A brief summary is this...Adam was given authority over all the Earth, ...[text shortened]... not inherit Adam's sinful nature...God created the seed in Mary and the rest is history....
You may be forgiven for it, but that doesn't mean that you are sinless.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
25 Jul 07
Originally posted by PalynkaOh, I'm sorry. I see your point. The original sin was passed on to us and we have no choice when we are born. That is correct. What we do have as a choice however, is to receive Jesus Christ as the remedy.
I'm sorry, I don't understand how that makes the original sin a choice for the XXth century human.
You may be forgiven for it, but that doesn't mean that you are sinless.
25 Jul 07
Originally posted by checkbaiterHideously off the mark. There are many more prerequisites for heaven than just John 3:16.
Oh, I'm sorry. I see your point. The original sin was passed on to us and we have no choice when we are born. That is correct. What we do have as a choice however, is to receive Jesus Christ as the remedy.
To get into heaven you must: love god, love your neighbour, follow all the commandments of the old testament, sell everything you own, perform eucharist, be baptised, act like a child, pray, actively say that you believe in Jesus, not judge others, be a virgin, ask to get into heaven and be more righteous than the scribes.
25 Jul 07
Originally posted by doodinthemoodI'm sorry to say, but it's you who is off the mark. We were discussing the choices involved in the original sin.
Hideously off the mark. There are many more prerequisites for heaven than just John 3:16.
To get into heaven you must: love god, love your neighbour, follow all the commandments of the old testament, sell everything you own, perform eucharist, be baptised, act like a child, pray, actively say that you believe in Jesus, not judge others, be a virgin, ask to get into heaven and be more righteous than the scribes.
25 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSin is a break with reality and faith, Jesus walked in reality at all times
What happened to free will? How can there be free will yet everyone chooses the same thing?
What does it say about God if [b]everyone chooses not to be with him?[/b]
and did so in faith. We will from time to time excuse our breaks with
reality and faith and think we are good people. We make excuses for
those times we know we should have done something else, or did
something we know we shouldn't have, we know, we just water down
our short comings. We sin not because we don't want to be with God,
we do it because we want what we want and are willing to attempt to
get something or avoid something even if we have to hide parts of
our lives from others.
Kelly
25 Jul 07
We sin not because we don't want to be with God
Yet (correct me if I am wrong) the consequence of sin is separation from God, which Christians believe is self inflicted and one's own choice. Many Christians also insist that everyone believes in God deep down and sinners choose to turn away from God.