[W:18] The Emphasis of Genesis Chapter One

[AmNat]

I think it is more a matter of trusting God's holy spirit to preserve the substance of the original than anything else...His spirit can accomplish anything...

The Church is the vehicle by which God ensures the truth is handed on faithfully throughout the ages.

In any case, if the OP thinks God allowed the original content to be corrupted (and thus lost), it's inherently unlikely that he personally could reconstruct it correctly.

 

[Overitall]

The Church is the vehicle by which God ensures the truth is handed on faithfully throughout the ages.

In any case, if the OP thinks God allowed the original content to be corrupted (and thus lost), it's inherently unlikely that he personally could reconstruct it correctly.

There are certain fundamental keys to accurately extracting God's words from that that man has changed. The first thing to keep in mind is God cannot contradict Himself.

The argument goes something like this:

If God is perfect then,

His words are perfect.

If His words are contradictory then,

His words are not perfect thus,

God is not perfect.

 

[AmNat]

There are certain fundamental keys to accurately extracting God's words from that that man has changed. The first thing to keep in mind is God cannot contradict Himself.

The argument goes something like this:

If God is perfect then,

His words are perfect.

If His words are contradictory then,

His words are not perfect thus,

God is not perfect.

In truth there are no contradictions in the Bible. There are instances where contradictions can be created by errant interpretation, but Genesis 1 is not among them.

 

[Overitall]

In truth there are no contradictions in the Bible. There are instances where contradictions can be created by errant interpretation, but Genesis 1 is not among them.

I follow a simple rule when it comes to apparent contradictions one will find in the Bible (and there are many). Either you don't understand what is written and/or the translation is in error. If it's in the translation, you need to compare the version you're using with the actual text used to write it. The KJV has the only feature which indicates when a word/s has been added to it with the use of italics. If you see a word (in the KJV) that is, then you need to question why it was added; was there a more accurate word that can be substituted for what's missing? My argument above, if valid/true, means either one or the other must be a factor in what we consider contradictory verses.

 

[AmNat]

I follow a simple rule when it comes to apparent contradictions one will find in the Bible (and there are many). Either you don't understand what is written and/or the translation is in error. If it's in the translation, you need to compare the version you're using with the actual text used to write it. The KJV has the only feature which indicates when a word/s has been added to it with the use of italics. If you see a word (in the KJV) that is, then you need to question why it was added; was there a more accurate word that can be substituted for what's missing? My argument above, if valid/true, means either one or the other must be a factor in what we consider contradictory verses.

If the claim is that there are errors in English translations, that is a very different matter from claiming the received Hebrew/Greek/Latin text is corrupt.

Of course, Genesis 1 is not relevantly different in the Masoretic or Septuagint (or the Vulgate) than it is in modern English Bibles.

 

[Overitall]

If the claim is that there are errors in English translations, that is a very different matter from claiming the received Hebrew/Greek/Latin text is corrupt.

Of course, Genesis 1 is not relevantly different in the Masoretic or Septuagint (or the Vulgate) than it is in modern English Bibles.

Any text is subject to errors. When dating them it's obvious that none can be called "the literal word of God". I'm not claiming they are corrupt, just not without errors.

 

[BabyAugustine]

For years I’ve seen people focus on the creation of God whenever discussing Genesis chapter one. It’s been my humble opinion that the true emphasis of the first chapter of the Bible has been missed. The springboard for my viewpoint rests upon the foundation of two points. The first being Romans 1:25.

NIV: They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

The second point being the significance of figures of speech found in the Bible. Genesis chapter one being a treasure trove of them, but there is one that stands out throughout the chapter. But first a word on figure of speeches.

Figure of speeches are God’s way of emphasizing important points within the text of His Word. They are not haphazardly used. As such a greater understanding of God’s messages can be obtained when this fundamental principle is known and understood.

As stated, Genesis one contains a treasure trove of figure of speeches but one in particular stands out. It is the figure of repetio. This figure has several variations, but I don’t want to get bogged down with the nuances of them. Instead I’ll leave that aspect to any interested person to flesh out on their own.

As the word “repetio” suggests it’s the repetition of words and/or phrases that are emphasized. In Genesis the predominant phrases repeated are “God said . . . and it was so.” The emphasis isn’t on what was said, but rather that whatever God says is so and true. It will come to pass.
In my humble opinion God wanted to establish a core principle that flows throughout the rest of Scripture. Whatever God says we can rest assured that it’s true and will come to pass “it was so”. We can be assured of that whenever we look at His creation.

Any thoughts?

well the first thing is that the division into chapters is what makes people think Ch 2 is another creation story, which of course Jerome did not think

plantaverat autem Dominus Deus paradisum voluptatis a principio in quo posuit hominem quem formaverat

And the Lord God had planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning: wherein he placed man whom he had formed.

Can you find one english version now that doesn't say 'planted' thus implying that we have a new Creatoin account ??????

 

[BabyAugustine]

Any text is subject to errors. When dating them it's obvious that none can be called "the literal word of God". I'm not claiming they are corrupt, just not without errors.

But that ASSUMES sola scriptura and private interpretation not to mention that it seems ignorant that in the OT almost everything in an accepted Scripture is a long time after the evernts reported. so that the Church and the received teaching PRECEDES the record of that teaching.

What Genesis reports was in the culture for a LOOOONG time before we get the book

But in my experience people like you will not own up to that.

 

[Overitall]

But that ASSUMES sola scriptura and private interpretation not to mention that it seems ignorant that in the OT almost everything in an accepted Scripture is a long time after the evernts reported. so that the Church and the received teaching PRECEDES the record of that teaching.

What Genesis reports was in the culture for a LOOOONG time before we get the book

But in my experience people like you will not own up to that.

Then there's no point in my engaging you. Enjoy.

 

[Michael Cole]

It’s a creation myth and I think you’re reading things into it that aren’t there.

One of two in Genesis. Two contradictory myths.

 

[Daisy]

One of two in Genesis. Two contradictory myths.

Wrong...Genesis 1 tells us how the earth was prepared by Jehovah to support life, Genesis 2 tells us specifically about the 1st 2 humans, Adam and Eve...same account from 2 different perspectives...

 

[Michael Cole]

Wrong...Genesis 1 tells us how the earth was prepared by Jehovah to support life, Genesis 2 tells us specifically about the 1st 2 humans, Adam and Eve...same account from 2 different perspectives...

Yeah, sure. They're the same but different. Lol. They weren't even written by the same author.

They contradict each other. Plain as day. Your magical explanations don't work.

 

[Daisy]

Yeah, sure. They're the same but different. Lol. They weren't even written by the same author.

They contradict each other. Plain as day. Your magical explanations don't work.

Discernment/wisdom is needed...

Additionally, the way a narrative is constructed can lead to an apparent contradiction. At Genesis 1:24-26, the Bible indicates that the animals were created before man. But at Genesis 2:7, 19, 20, it seems to say that man was created before the animals. Why the discrepancy? Because the two accounts of the creation discuss it from two different viewpoints. The first describes the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them. (Genesis 1:1–2:4) The second concentrates on the creation of the human race and its fall into sin.—Genesis 2:5–4:26.
The first account is constructed chronologically, divided into six consecutive “days.” The second is written in order of topical importance. After a short prologue, it logically goes straight to the creation of Adam, since he and his family are the subject of what follows. (Genesis 2:7) Other information is then introduced as needed. We learn that after his creation Adam was to live in a garden in Eden. So the planting of the garden of Eden is now mentioned. (Genesis 2:8, 9, 15) Jehovah tells Adam to name “every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.” Now, then, is the time to mention that “Jehovah God was forming from the ground” all these creatures, although their creation began long before Adam appeared on the scene.—Genesis 2:19; 1:20, 24, 26.

 

[Michael Cole]

Discernment/wisdom is needed...

Discernment and wisdom are lacking from your posts. I see lots of magic. The texts are clearly contradictory.

You believe in magic. I believe in reality.

Additionally, the way a narrative is constructed can lead to an apparent contradiction. At Genesis 1:24-26, the Bible indicates that the animals were created before man. But at Genesis 2:7, 19, 20, it seems to say that man was created before the animals. Why the discrepancy? Because the two accounts of the creation discuss it from two different viewpoints. The first describes the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them. (Genesis 1:1–2:4) The second concentrates on the creation of the human race and its fall into sin.—Genesis 2:5–4:26.
The first account is constructed chronologically, divided into six consecutive “days.” The second is written in order of topical importance. After a short prologue, it logically goes straight to the creation of Adam, since he and his family are the subject of what follows. (Genesis 2:7) Other information is then introduced as needed. We learn that after his creation Adam was to live in a garden in Eden. So the planting of the garden of Eden is now mentioned. (Genesis 2:8, 9, 15) Jehovah tells Adam to name “every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.” Now, then, is the time to mention that “Jehovah God was forming from the ground” all these creatures, although their creation began long before Adam appeared on the scene.—Genesis 2:19; 1:20, 24, 26.

2 + 2 = 5. No, really it does. Magic.

 

[Daisy]

Discernment and wisdom are lacking from your posts. I see lots of magic. The texts are clearly contradictory.

You believe in magic. I believe in reality.


2 + 2 = 5. No, really it does. Magic.

Wrong...I do not believe in magic...that is Satan's bag, which is why God forbids anything to do with magic...

 

[Michael Cole]

Wrong...I do not believe in magic...that is Satan's bag, which is why God forbids anything to do with magic...

You pray. You believe in magic. Your "God" is famous for his magic tricks.

You also are a polytheist. You believe in more than one supernatural being.

 

[Daisy]

You pray. You believe in magic. Your "God" is famous for his magic tricks.

You also are a polytheist. You believe in more than one supernatural being.

Lies...there is One God, Jehovah...

 

[Michael Cole]

Lies...there is One God, Jehovah...

You believe in Satan. A supernatural being. You are a polytheist. You probably believe in angels as well.

 

[Daisy]

You believe in Satan. A supernatural being. You are a polytheist. You probably believe in angels as well.

I worship Jehovah God, no one else...

 

[Michael Cole]

I worship Jehovah God, no one else...

I don't care who you claim to worship. You believe in several supernatural beings. That's polytheism any way you slice it. That some are lessor or opposing gods doesn't change this.

 

[Daisy]

I don't care who you claim to worship. You believe in several supernatural beings. That's polytheism any way you slice it. That some are lessor or opposing gods doesn't change this.

No, it is not...

 

[Michael Cole]

No, it is not...

You deny plain English and basic human understanding. Freaky.

You are a polytheist. You believe in a hierarchy of gods. Simple denial doesn't change this.

 

[Daisy]

You deny plain English and basic human understanding. Freaky.

You are a polytheist. You believe in a hierarchy of gods. Simple denial doesn't change this.

You sure do...I worship one God but I also believe there are many gods humans have invented in their paganism that are mentioned in the Bible...Jesus spoke of many gods...

"Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified" John 10:34,35

so did Paul...

"For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” there is actually to us one God, the Father" 1 Corinthians 8:5,6

The Bible calls Satan the god of this world...so there's that...

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." 2 Corinthians 4:4

 

[BabyAugustine]

For years I’ve seen people focus on the creation of God whenever discussing Genesis chapter one. It’s been my humble opinion that the true emphasis of the first chapter of the Bible has been missed. The springboard for my viewpoint rests upon the foundation of two points. The first being Romans 1:25.

NIV: They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

The second point being the significance of figures of speech found in the Bible. Genesis chapter one being a treasure trove of them, but there is one that stands out throughout the chapter. But first a word on figure of speeches.

Figure of speeches are God’s way of emphasizing important points within the text of His Word. They are not haphazardly used. As such a greater understanding of God’s messages can be obtained when this fundamental principle is known and understood.

As stated, Genesis one contains a treasure trove of figure of speeches but one in particular stands out. It is the figure of repetio. This figure has several variations, but I don’t want to get bogged down with the nuances of them. Instead I’ll leave that aspect to any interested person to flesh out on their own.

As the word “repetio” suggests it’s the repetition of words and/or phrases that are emphasized. In Genesis the predominant phrases repeated are “God said . . . and it was so.” The emphasis isn’t on what was said, but rather that whatever God says is so and true. It will come to pass.
In my humble opinion God wanted to establish a core principle that flows throughout the rest of Scripture. Whatever God says we can rest assured that it’s true and will come to pass “it was so”. We can be assured of that whenever we look at His creation.

Any thoughts?

Yes there was no Chapter ONE until about 2000 years later so the very parceling you do is already a form of interpreattion
But nonetheless,,,Romans comes MUCH later so what Genesis conveys it convesy even if later it is seen to be not restricted to that.
I have no beef at all with even the most conservative readings of Genesis. However God did things Ijust ask "IF the Bible wanted to convey recent creation and the 7 days literally what could it have said differently"
I have over decades not found an answer to that. But honestly though I lean 90% to my view of Creation I am open,themain thing is God is the Creator of all that is.

 

[AmNat]

I have no beef at all with even the most conservative readings of Genesis. However God did things Ijust ask "IF the Bible wanted to convey recent creation and the 7 days literally what could it have said differently"
I have over decades not found an answer to that.

This is my reasoning as well. The notion of an old world would not have been unknown to the Israelites (the Egyptians and Chaldeans both believed it to be of incredible antiquity), and Moses seems to have taken pains to emphasize that the days in Genesis 1 were normal 24-hour days: “evening came and morning followed, one day” - even using a cardinal number for the first day rather than an ordinal. It’s not clear what more he could have said to endorse the young-Earth view, whereas he easily could have made Genesis compatible with an old world: “over a long time, God created the day and the night etc.”.