its a nice theory but i see some errors in there;
the first thing we notice in vs 5 is that we do NOT have plants growing BECAUSE there was no rain. then it goes into vs6 that then explains to you were water for plants came from so in essence the creation was together and not separate as you have noted.

the other thing to bear in mind when reading ANY part of scripture is that when it was first written, there were no spaces between the words, no full stops, no question marks. in fact, everything was written in caps all the way through. this means that the inclusion of all the grammatical stuff came at a later date. the translation from original text to English has come with a lot of good and bad points.

Actually, the punctuations from translator's do not affect the content of what the texts say. The work of scholars who have a thorough knowlege of the langauges, cultural histories, spiritual significance, etc of the Biblical peoples should not be thrown off stage with petty complaints from those of us who don't even have the slightest clue of how to make a simple straight sentence in Hebrew!

----------------------------------

Genesis 1 & 2 are not speaking of two types of creations. Genesis 1 gives a summary, a sort of prolegomena of the creation; while chap. 2 gives the detail of that same creative work - especially with regards to man. Note the distinctions:

chapter 1:27 -- 'So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them'
[no mention here of HOW man was created]

chapter 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.'
[here is the detail of HOW man was created]

Reading both chapters carefully, you'll find that chapter 2 expounds upon the creation in this way:

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, 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. (vs. 4-5)

As the narratives unfold, we are told what events occured before man was created (vs. 6); and then in vs. 7, the detail of how man was created is there unfolded.

The same thing more or less is stated in the same Genesis narratives for the creation of the woman (ch. 2). Notice that in chapter 1, the word used there was simply "man" [Heb. אדם - Adam] vs. 26, and it connotes the generic name for mankind/humans. The detail for the creation of the woman, however, was not given in ch. 1; but rather, we find it in ch. 2.21-22.

In all of this, only when you get to ch. 5:1-2 will you see that God gave the man and the woman a single name: Adam [Heb. אדם].

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man,
in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and
blessed them, [/b]and called their name Adam[/b], in the day when they were created.

There. The problem is solved when you can understand that in Jewish thought, events are usually first stated in summary, and later detailed; usually outlining those events according to their spiritual import, rather than to political, social or any other concerns. It is for reason you find Gen. 2:4 recounting "the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created", while in Gen. 5:1 it is rather "the generations of Adam, in the day that God created man"; then in Gen 6:9, you find "the generations of Noah", etc.

What is significant here is that the bigger picture comes before the unit: from the creation of the heavens and the earth; to that of Adam; then to Noah; etc. What is more remarkable is that the spiritual significance is more prominently held out than any other issue.

Hi,


I think it’s important in how we make corrections to others. I suppose it does not affect me (as i CHOOSE to not let it) but I am sure there might be others that might see your reply as not too friendly. I am not saying this was your intension (it might well have been! LOL) but just how it might be perceived.

I think you will find that the punctuations WILL affect what the text is saying some times.
I draw your attention to the story of the conversation between the thief or criminal on the cross and JC.

According to the punctuation there, “I promise you, today you will be with me in paradise”, the promise to the thief was that, the same day would see him in paradise with JC but if you take the coma and place it one word to the right so it reads “I promise you today, you will be with me in paradise” I am sure you will see that the whole emphasis changes from the promise itself to the day the promise will be realised.

I really like SOME of your posts and I guess that the whole point is that we have different views and opinions but I am sure we can both be civilised adults even when we disagree.

Look forward to getting your reply as I am sure I can learn a lot from you but hopefully with out the naija headmaster comments. LOL

The problem is solved when you can understand that in Jewish thought, events are usually first stated in summary, and later detailed; usually outlining those events according to their spiritual import, rather than to political, social or any other concerns. It is for reason you find Gen. 2:4 recounting "the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created", while in Gen. 5:1 it is rather "the generations of Adam, in the day that God created man"; then in Gen 6:9, you find "the generations of Noah", etc.

I really agree with the above in that I see a lot of scripture being read with out an understanding of the Jewish culture at the time, figures of speech and even slang at the time. I am starting to realise that in order to fully understand scripture, these areas need to be properly looked into.

Any way, enough for now and hope you enjoy the rest of your day.


Peace!

jerrymania:

[font=Lucida Sans Unicode]Was There Two Types Of Creation? Every one that believes in the bible creation should discuss about this.

While I don't believe in the Bible's creation acccount, I'd like to add my two cents. I don't think the second account was written to be taken literally. The first was written to credit the existence of humans, the world and the Universe to the God of the Israelites as opposed to the other Gods around them, while the second is an allegorical narrative. Otherwise they contradict each other.

its KAG!!!!
the love of my "Nairaland" life! How you doing today!?

@thesilent1,

thesilent1:

I think it’s important in how we make corrections to others. I suppose it does not affect me (as i CHOOSE to not let it) but I am sure there might be others that might see your reply as not too friendly. I am not saying this was your intension (it might well have been! LOL) but just how it might be perceived.

In just the same manner that you might have perceived mine to be somewhat skewed, yours might as well be just about doing the same. I didn't intend to make you feel somewhat put down; so apologies if you did. I just happen to notice that off-handed statements often come off your keyboard on some issues; and alas, we all often do that, don't we? lol.  

thesilent1:

I think you will find that the punctuations WILL affect what the text is saying some times.
I draw your attention to the story of the conversation between the thief or criminal on the cross and JC.

According to the punctuation there, “I promise you, today you will be with me in paradise”, the promise to the thief was that, the same day would see him in paradise with JC but if you take the coma and place it one word to the right so it reads “I promise you today, you will be with me in paradise” I am sure you will see that the whole emphasis changes from the promise itself to the day the promise will be realised.

I may agree with you that in some instances, the punctuations may affect the way we understand a particular text. The only serious issue here is that the example you used (Luke 23:43) is only typical of those who have an agenda to deny what it says. Even if one should remove all punctuations as read in our English Bibles, the sense and import of the statement stands clearly to be that Jesus meant the repentant thief would be with Him in paradise that very day.

thesilent1:

I really like SOME of your posts and I guess that the whole point is that we have different views and opinions but I am sure we can both be civilised adults even when we disagree.

Once again, I apologise - and you're not the only one complaining. I was about posting issues to babs787 in other threads when friends in my office prevailed upon me to desist and let him run out of his intoxication. Thank God for such brothers who can be at hand to call us to reason.  

thesilent1:

Look forward to getting your reply as I am sure I can learn a lot from you but hopefully with out the naija headmaster comments. LOL

Infact, I got another hot pat just now from another collegue - and yes, I'll try and calm down. lol. (I didn't promise; only said "I'll try!".  

thesilent1:

I really agree with the above in that I see a lot of scripture being read with out an understanding of the Jewish culture at the time, figures of speech and even slang at the time. I am starting to realise that in order to fully understand scripture, these areas need to be properly looked into.

Any way, enough for now and hope you enjoy the rest of your day.
Peace!

You too. Bless up.  

wow! you see this people; two people discussing without threat of world war 3!!! LOL

Nice one sir, we learn daily from ALL those around us; good or bad.

with regards to the example i used, i have thought about JC's reply to his statement but i find it contradicts the fact that he was to remain in the ground 3 days and 3 nights BEFORE the ressurection. there is also the question of prior to the ressurection no one had ascended to heaven yet (i might be wrong)

your thoughts my new found brother!!!

Peace!

Lol @thesilent1,

Your enquiries are well appreciated. Did you pray for me?? Because just now somebody reading your reaction from his PC just came to my office and gave me a ********* (undisclosed!!)   Thanks, I happy just now.

Now back to business.  Actually, anyone not familiar with Biblical constructs may quite easily find thousands of contradictions and inconsistencies, and we can't pretend that anyone can't do this. However, when you carefully examine the texts and seek out their meaning with a background understanding of the aforementioned values, it becomes quite easy to find them.

Take for instance, the issue of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - was it a literal three days and nights of 24 hours each? Again, we would have to go back to the cultural language of the Biblical people themselves and ask what these disciples meant when they said:

"But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel:
and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done."
(Luke 24:21)

I cannot pretend that this is that simple; but I'll take it one bit at a time and share on why I believe that Jesus statement was fulfilled to the letter!

The example above is precisely on the same plane as His promise to return "quickly". The word 'quickly' should not be taken in the same sense as we often think in terms of common terms. First, let's keep in mind this text:

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness;
but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all
should come to repentance."  -- 2 Pet. 3:9

This is not something to fill in the gaps; for even before the times of the NT, it has always been the divine principle that God does things from purely spiritual context. Remember 1 Sam 16:7 (He does not see things man's way); and Isa. 55:8 (God's thoughts higher than man's); etc. In just the same way, when we read such contexts as dealing with issues that may look quizzical on the outward, yet we need to understand them from their spiritual import.

As I find time, you'll be reading about these issues in weeks to come; and other concerns about who was the first to ascend; the first to be raised from the dead; whether any man has seen God before John 1:18 was penned, etc. They are quite interesting issues; but they present no problem at all - as long as we preserve their contexts.

God bless.  

cool, i keenly await.