Genesis ch 1&2

[miker088]

Genesis chapters 1&2 are probably the most misunderstood topics in the Bible. The Hebrew words translated into English are similar but not exact. The only way to know the exact meaning of the Hebrew words is to have a copy of “The Complete Word Study Old Testament”.
The Hebrew word translated as “create” possesses the meaning of “bringing into existence” and usually created out of nothing.
The Hebrew word translated “made or make”dealt with the refinement of a previously created object. Not too different from evolution.
The Hebrew word translated as “formed” found in chapter 2 means to form or fashion much like a potter would do, and is not interchangeable with the other words create, made or make.
The words “create” and “made or make” alternate in chapter 1(sometimes in the same verse) showing that they are words with different meanings and are simply not interchangeable as most people believe.
We have all been taught that “Adam” and man of chapter 1 are the same person, but when you know the meaning of the Hebrew words and don’t ignore the chronology of the two chapters (man of chapter 1 was the last of creation and Adam of chapter 2 was the first of creation) and other events, the only logical conclusion is that they weren’t the same person.
In chapter 1, the word “earth” appears many times and is translated from the Hebrew word that means the whole earth – as opposed to heaven.
In chapter 2 that same word isn’t used, instead the word “ground” is used and it means something much different. The Hebrew word translated as ground means ground, a parcel of ground, or region or territory – quite different!

[KennithRobertM]

On 19/03/2018 at 9:56 PM, miker088 said:

The Hebrew word translated “made or make”dealt with the refinement of a previously created object. Not too different from evolution.

Is this the root of your dilemma ?

I am no expert but I don't have a problem with evolution. It doesn't bother me one way or another.

If that was the way God wanted to created the earth then who are we to argue?

It doesn't have any bearing on my belief because I follow the words of God and trust in Christ.

[thilipsis]

The phrase, 'heaven and the earth', is a Hebrew expression meaning the universe. All we really get from this passage is that the cosmos and earth were created, 'in the beginning'. The perspective of creation week is from the surface of the earth, starting with the Spirit of God hovering over the deep (Gen. 1:2). In the chapter there are three words used for God's work in creation. The first is 'created' ('bara' H1254) a very precise term used only of God.
 

Create ‘bara’ (H1254) - 'This verb has profound theological significance, since it has only God as it’s subject. Only God can create in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses the idea of creation out of nothing...(Vines Expository Dictionary)

It is used once to describe the creation of the universe (Gen 1:1), then again to describe the creation of life (Gen 1:21). Finally, in the closing verses, it is used three times for the creation of Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:27). The word translated, 'made' (asah 6213) , has a much broader range of meaning and is used to speak of the creation of the 'firmament' (Gen 1:7), the sun, moon and stars (Gen 1:16), procreation where offspring are made 'after his/their kind' (Gen 1:25) and as a general reference to creation in it's vast array (Gen 1:31).
 

Made ‘asah’(H6213) "A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application" (Gen 1:7, Gen 1:16, Gen 1:25, Gen 1:31, Isa. 41:20, 43:7, 45:7, 12, Amos 4:13). (Strong’s Dictionary). "The verb, which occurs over 2600 times in the Old Testament, is used as a synonym for “create” only about 60 times…only when asah is parallel to bara…can we be sure that it implies creation." (Vine 52).

Then there is a third term when God 'set' (nathan H2414), the lights of the sun, moon and stars so that their light is regularly visible from the surface of the earth. In this way the narrative shifts from the very precise word for 'created' to the more general 'made', and then the much broader use of 'set'.
 

Set (nathan H5414) A primitive root; to give, used with greatest latitude of application (Gen 1:17, Gen 9:13, Gen 18:8, Gen 30:40, Gen 41:41). Elsewhere translated ‘put’, ‘make’, ‘cause’, etc.

The creation account has great significance for the rest of Scripture and how these terms are used in the original and their natural context is essential to really following the text as it was intended to be understood.

[thomas t]

Hi Kennith,

On 2.4.2018 at 5:30 AM, KennithRobertM said:

I don't have a problem with evolution. It doesn't bother me one way or another.

If that was the way God wanted to created the earth then who are we to argue?

Evolution, ok.

But I think, Genesis 1&2 and the Theory of Evolution cannot be combined.

As an exaple, the ToE claims that man evolved from another animal. But Bible says man was made of dust.

There's no way to reconcile these two, I think.

Best regards,

Thomas

[Bonky]

On 5/11/2018 at 5:38 AM, thomas t said:

Evolution, ok.

But I think, Genesis 1&2 and the Theory of Evolution cannot be combined.

As an exaple, the ToE claims that man evolved from another animal. But Bible says man was made of dust.

 

And that little word "dust" will be used in whatever way is convenient for the user.  Without any hard work someone could propose that dust means the elements that we are composed of [created ex nihilo by God] and a theistic evolutionist could say it's referring to "star dust" which is what many scientists would say all earthly matter [source material for our bodies etc] came from.  

Edited May 12, 2018 by Bonky

[Guest shiloh357]

10 minutes ago, Bonky said:

And that little word "dust" will be used in whatever way is convenient for the user.  Without any hard work someone could propose that dust means the elements that we are composed of [created ex nihilo by God] and a theistic evolutionist could say it's referring to "star dust" which is what many scientists would say all earthly matter [source material for our bodies etc] came from.  

Yeah, I suppose you could look at it that way if you are interested in committing intellectual suicide.

[Guest shiloh357]

On ‎4‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 10:30 PM, KennithRobertM said:

Is this the root of your dilemma ?

I am no expert but I don't have a problem with evolution. It doesn't bother me one way or another.

If that was the way God wanted to created the earth then who are we to argue?

It doesn't have any bearing on my belief because I follow the words of God and trust in Christ.

I never ceased to be amazed at how dishonest Christians can be about the incompatibility of Genesis 1 and 2 with Evolution.   Even atheistic scientists like Richard Dawkins are more honest about the problem that exists between Evolution and Genesis.  

[Bonky]

15 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Yeah, I suppose you could look at it that way if you are interested in committing intellectual suicide.

People such as William Lane Craig etc are able to see it that way.  I lean towards the stardust idea.  The building blocks of life are carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur.   Using spectroscopy a lot of data has been captured about the abundance of life building elements and they are more concentrated in the center of our galaxy than the outer regions.   I don't think that's conclusive at all but it's certainly interesting.

[thomas t]

2 hours ago, Bonky said:

People [...] are able to see it that way.

yeah. The question is, what the Bible means, and what the intention is in what is written.

God wants to explain us his word, that's it, I think.

When God makes it clear that someone is made from another living being, however, he uses different words as he did in Genesis chapter 2:

"So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.

22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

 

As we see from this little Bible passage, if one being is derived from another, a whole theology is built on that.

So, if man was created from animal, then it would be certain to conclude that, for God, the animals would say ...

“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh", as did Adam when he found out where his wife came from.

 

However, this wouldn't make any sense, so the whole idea of God creating man from living matter is junk, I'd say.

 

Best regards.

Thomas

[Guest shiloh357]

4 hours ago, Bonky said:

People such as William Lane Craig etc are able to see it that way..

I could not care less what he thinks.

Quote

I lean towards the stardust idea.  The building blocks of life are carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur.   Using spectroscopy a lot of data has been captured about the abundance of life building elements and they are more concentrated in the center of our galaxy than the outer regions.   I don't think that's conclusive at all but it's certainly interesting

The Bible says this:

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.  (Gen 2:7)

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
(Gen 3:19)

Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
(Gen 3:23)
 

Behold, I am according to thy wish in God's stead: I also am formed out of the clay.
(Job 33:6)
 

The Bible is pretty clear that man was made from the dirt, not from stardust.   The Bible is inerrant and infallible.  The Bible says it and that settles it.