Genesis 1: the obvious reading??

[EnochBethany]

 

 

 

 

===========================================================================

 

 

Hey Shiloh,

 

Not that some require water and others don't, but that God is the source of all life.  God supernaturally provided for man and beast.   Other secondary plants, bushes, shrubs that don't necessarily produce food were meant to sprout later as man worked the ground.

 

When does 2:6 come into play?...

 

(Genesis 2:6) "But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."

 

 

Hence the need for better exegesis.  A simple reading of both texts in Hebrew indicate that two different kinds of vegitation are in play.  It is not so clear in English, but it is quite clear in Hebrew.

 

Can you expand briefly? Thanks

 

what vss have 2 veggies?  Is one broccoli?

[OldSchool2]

Thou hast said, "And if "an English dictionary is worth very little in defining Bible terms," then why even bother speaking English to one another?

 

We speak English to each other, but we define Bible terms from Greek & Hebrew lexicons, if we want the correct meaning.  English dictionaries record what contemporary English words mean ...

They can do more than that.

parable: a simple story illustrating a moral or religious lesson.

[Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin parabola, from Greek parabolē, from paraballein, to compare : para-, beside; see para-1 + ballein, to throw; see gwelə- in Indo-European roots.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Yes, they sometimes include etymology, but the dictionary does not purport to define the ancestor words by modern English usage.  Neither is etymology intended to imply modern meaning ...

As I don't speak Greek, classical or koine, whatever source you use must be expressed into modern English if you want to continue this discussion with me.

The claim is made: "IMO, Genesis is a parable -- Jesus used them all the time."

Yes, the Lord Jesus used parables.

1) How long are parables?

2) How long is Genesis? ...

What is the name of this thread? "Genesis 1: the obvious reading??"?

I did not mean to infer that the entire book was a parable, just the genesis of Genesis, hence the Enuma Elish comparison, but apparently that wasn't so obvious to some readers.

Well, one waits for your demonstration as to how Gen 1 is a parable ...

According to Merriam-Webster, a parable is "a simple story told to illustrate a moral truth," e.g., that God made the world and saw that it was good.

That is not how a parable works. "God made the world and aw that it was good" is not a moral truth; it is an historical truth. Go learn the difference. And you don't have the right to define Genesis 1 as a parable ...

Did it ever occur to you that Genesis 1 could contain both a moral and a historical truth(s)?

"God made the world (historical) and saw that it was good (moral)" -- then came the fall of man.

How difficult is that?

And IMO means "In My Opinion" -- so who gave YOU the "right" to tell me or anyone else here that I can't have one about Genesis? Unlike you, I am not peddling my own personal views as dogma that everyone must accept.

You eventually turn every discussion on these forums into your own personal inquisition and frankly I am sick of it!

[Guest shiloh357]

Did it ever occur to you that Genesis 1 could contain both a moral and a historical truth(s)?

It contains theological and historical truths.  I have no problem with that.  But that is not what you are arguing.  You are arguing that it isn't historical. You  are arguing that it is a parable.

 

"God made the world (historical) and saw that it was good (moral)" -- then came the fall of man.

How difficult is that?

 

Because none of that of is "moral" truth.  Both are historical.  That God say it was good doesn't establish a moral standard.  it simply means that God liked what He saw.  You are straining to force a moral truth that doesn't exist.

 

And IMO means "In My Opinion" -- so who gave YOU the "right" to tell me or anyone else here that I can't have one about Genesis? Unlike you, I am not peddling my own personal views as dogma that everyone must accept.

The problem is that you are claiming it is parable.  That takes this out of the realm of opinion.  You are making a textual argument and a textual argument is or should be based on fcct.  You have a right ot your own opinion, but you don't have a right to your own facts.   Your opinion that this is a parable is a wrong opinion and it demonstratably wrong.  

 

You took this out of the realm of opinion when you tried to make textual argumnets and you are making textual claims that you can't support with facts.  In the face of that, your opinion is meaningless and should be rejected by anyone who is familiar with textual analysis.  You don't have the right, on a textual or factual basis to claim Genesis is a parable.  Simple as that. 

 

You eventually turn every discussion on these forums into your own personal inquisition and frankly I am sick of it!

 

And I am sick of the way you mock the Bible with your false teaching and the way you equate Genesis 1-3 with fairytales.  I am here to make sure no one is led astray by the real fairytales and false teachings contained in posts that deny the historicity of Genesis 1-3

[Guest shiloh357]

.

what vss have 2 veggies?  Is one broccoli?

 

I didn't say that.  I said that that God created the food producing vegitation functionally mature.   But the non-food producing vegitation was given to man to cultivate.  That is how the Scriptures read.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 

===========================================================================

 

 

Hey Shiloh,

 

Not that some require water and others don't, but that God is the source of all life.  God supernaturally provided for man and beast.   Other secondary plants, bushes, shrubs that don't necessarily produce food were meant to sprout later as man worked the ground.

 

When does 2:6 come into play?...

 

(Genesis 2:6) "But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."

 

 

Hence the need for better exegesis.  A simple reading of both texts in Hebrew indicate that two different kinds of vegitation are in play.  It is not so clear in English, but it is quite clear in Hebrew.

 

Can you expand briefly? Thanks

 

I am not sure what you are asking in reference to the mist.  God used the mist to keep the ground suitable for vegitation growth.

 

As for the the Hebrew, the words used in Gen. 1 pertains to what is necesary for food, seed bearing food, what we call fruits vegitables, beans, nuts, seeds, etc.   Waht we see in Gen. 2:5 is a references to the bushes and shrubs of the field.   Hebrew is very precise and these are general terms for vegitation, but specific kinds and not the same as used in Genesis  1. 

[EnochBethany]

 

.

what vss have 2 veggies?  Is one broccoli?

 

I didn't say that.  I said that that God created the food producing vegitation functionally mature.   But the non-food producing vegitation was given to man to cultivate.  That is how the Scriptures read.

 

Well, Shiloh when I was young . . . .

 

I am unaware of any Biblical proof for your theory.  Are you sure that your theory actually is implied by the texts?   You are saying that men were to cultivate cannabis for strong rope and roses to make them red, but not apples to make them delectable?  Men were supposed to eat crab apples?

 

Since man is to have dominion over the earth, I would think that man is may cultivate all plants & animals.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

.

what vss have 2 veggies?  Is one broccoli?

 

I didn't say that.  I said that that God created the food producing vegitation functionally mature.   But the non-food producing vegitation was given to man to cultivate.  That is how the Scriptures read.

 

Well, Shiloh when I was young . . . .

 

I am unaware of any Biblical proof for your theory.  Are you sure that your theory actually is implied by the texts?   You are saying that men were to cultivate cannabis for strong rope and roses to make them red, but not apples to make them delectable?  Men were supposed to eat crab apples?

 

Since man is to have dominion over the earth, I would think that man is may cultivate all plants & animals.

 

No, that is not what I am saying.   I am saying that at first God supernaturally sustained life until the natural processes began.  I think it would go without saying that eventually all vegitation would have been under man's care.  My point is that at the very beginning there was a supernatural element involved in that God sustained vegitative life prior to the process of photosynthesis. 

[EnochBethany]

You eventually turn every discussion on these forums into your own personal inquisition and frankly I am sick of it!

 

Give me your address & I will send you a bottle of Pepto Bismol.

 

Turn your eyes upon Jesus,

Look full in His wonderful face;

& the things of earth will grow strangely dim;

In the light of His glory & grace.

[EnochBethany]

 

 

 

.

what vss have 2 veggies?  Is one broccoli?

 

I didn't say that.  I said that that God created the food producing vegitation functionally mature.   But the non-food producing vegitation was given to man to cultivate.  That is how the Scriptures read.

 

Well, Shiloh when I was young . . . .

 

I am unaware of any Biblical proof for your theory.  Are you sure that your theory actually is implied by the texts?   You are saying that men were to cultivate cannabis for strong rope and roses to make them red, but not apples to make them delectable?  Men were supposed to eat crab apples?

 

Since man is to have dominion over the earth, I would think that man is may cultivate all plants & animals.

 

No, that is not what I am saying.   I am saying that at first God supernaturally sustained life until the natural processes began.  I think it would go without saying that eventually all vegitation would have been under man's care.  My point is that at the very beginning there was a supernatural element involved in that God sustained vegitative life prior to the process of photosynthesis. 

 

OK Shiloh; I find it an interesting theory.  Thanks for sharing it.  YHWH is the self-existent one; the rest of us depend on his sustaining.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

I am not sure what you are asking in reference to the mist.  God used the mist to keep the ground suitable for vegitation growth.

 

Well Connor seemed to have an issue with plants growing without rain/water.

 

I was wondering about if there were any thoughts on when this came into play and if it would render the point moot....

 

(Genesis 2:6) "But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."

 

 

As for the the Hebrew, the words used in Gen. 1 pertains to what is necesary for food, seed bearing food, what we call fruits vegitables, beans, nuts, seeds, etc.   Waht we see in Gen. 2:5 is a references to the bushes and shrubs of the field.   Hebrew is very precise and these are general terms for vegitation, but specific kinds and not the same as used in Genesis  1.

 

Ahhh, I never caught that.

 

Thanks