In some English versions it says that. According to my Hebrew/ Jewish Bible professor I had awhile back that phrase could be correctly translated from Hebrew both as had and not as had. This is part of the trouble with trying to come to conclusions about this.
In some English versions it says that. According to my Hebrew/ Jewish Bible professor I had awhile back that phrase could be correctly translated from Hebrew both as had and not as had. This is part of the trouble with trying to come to conclusions about this.
What about make? Do you think that means something other than make?
"18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. "
In some English versions it says that. According to my Hebrew/ Jewish Bible professor I had awhile back that phrase could be correctly translated from Hebrew both as had and not as had. This is part of the trouble with trying to come to conclusions about this.
The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
What about "make", though? If we look at the preceding passage, God says he will make something, then he "had formed from the ground" something. That implies that "had formed from the ground" in that context is the making of that something.
What about "make", though? If we look at the preceding passage, God says he will make something, then he "had formed from the ground" something. That implies that "had formed from the ground" in that context is the making of that something.
Genesis 2:18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
the bolded word is important.
But the two passages don't contradict even if you do take it literally. Still waiting for someone to show how they contradict.
Since the passage explains *why* God created the animals, I don't see any trouble:
Both passages are completely impossible if taken literally. Man did not come before animals, we evolved from them. Everyone with a brain knows that now.
In genesis one, man and woman were made simultaneously, both after the animals. In genesis 2, man came first, then the plants, then animals, then woman last.
Explain how that doesn't contradict.
what are you blabbering about? I already said that there is contradiction concerning man and woman.
As far as the man and woman thing go there's no necessary contradiction.
You need to take the chapters in context in their entirety.
GEN1 is the macro, 30,000 foot, week-long view.
On the 6th day God created both man and woman. No further detail given.
GEN2 is the micro, 50 foot, day-long view.
It provides more detail into, more color on, what God did on that 6th day and when he did it.
Yes referring to Eve. The animals had already been created see vs 19.
As far as the man and woman thing go there's no necessary contradiction.
You need to take the chapters in context in their entirety.
GEN1 is the macro, 30,000 foot, week-long view.
On the 6th day God created both man and woman. No further detail given.
GEN2 is the micro, 50 foot, day-long view.
It provides more detail into, more color on, what God did on that 6th day and when he did it.
He said he would make something just before he "had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky". Later on, after Adam meets and greets all of teh animals and birds, it says "But for Adam no suitable helper was found."
That implies that God made the animals and birds when he had formed out of the ground in order to see if any were suitable helpers.
Then why did he **** around with all of th eanimals before he mad eeve, if his decision to make a helper was a decision to make eve? Doesn't make any sense. I have to believe that God does not suffer from ADD, so I reject your hypotehsis.
No you are reading into the text.
That is high school level reading and isn't even college level.
let us make: means it hasn't happened yet
had formed: means it has already happened
The whole chapter is written in the past tense.
God didn't speak in the past tense, though.
One comes from a quote of God (make, future tense), one is in the description of events (which are ALL in the past tense).
What are you even trying to say?
It's not a hypothesis, that is exactly what the text says.
No you are reading into the text.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?