From: gordon brown (gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu)
Date: Sat Oct 11 2003 - 20:07:30 EDT
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, allenroy wrote:
> I suppose it depends upon which translation of the Bible you choose to read. For instance, the NIV reads:
>
> Gen 2:4b [NIV]
> When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-- [a reference to the Creation Week]
>
> (vs. 5
> 1. and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [a post-sin development]
> 2. and no plant of the field had yet sprung up [a post-sin development]
> 3. for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [a post-sin development]
> 4. and there was no man to work the ground, [a post-sin development]
>
> vs 6,
> but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground -- [as originally created])
>
> vs.7
> -- the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man
> became a living being. [during the Creation Week of verse 4b.]
>
> vs. 8
> Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; [a reference to what had already been done during the
> Creation Week] and there he put the man he had formed.
>
> vs. 19
> Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. [a reference to
> the origin of beasts of the field and birds during the Creation Week] He brought them to the man to see what he would
> name them;
>
> vs. 20
> But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was
> sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the
> rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
>
> Of course, if you believe that the KJV is the only version to use, then we have other issues to deal with. And just
> because some Bible scholars argue that "had been" is not a proper translation, so what, there are plenty of other just as
> competent scholars who say it is. [That argument simply degenerates into appeals to authority.] Further, the context of
> Genesis 1 and 2 together calls for the use of "had been" because it resolves all apparent conflicts.
Allen,
Biblical doctrine should be based on the original, not on some favorite
translation.
I don't think you can harmonize Genesis 1 and 2 by introducing
discrepancies that aren't really there, but that is what I see you doing,
especially when you say that certain things are post-sin developments.
Surely Genesis 1 is intended to say that God created everything in the
universe including the vegetation mentioned in Gen. 2:5. Its
previous absence from the area where the Garden of Eden was to be planted
was not attributed to its not having been created, but rather to the
absence of rain and absence of a man to till the soil. Something had to
change before the Garden could exist.
In verse 7 man is formed, and that is not a post-sin development. He was
to cultivate the Garden (Gen. 2:15). That is not a post-sin development.
I think the other problem is corrected in verse 6, and that is not a
post-sin development. Translations vary as to whether it refers to mist,
vapor, fountains, streams, et al. The word so translated occurs only here
and in Job 36:27, where it is associated with the formation of rain. Such
an association would also fit the context of Gen. 2.
In order to harmonize Genesis 1 and 2, you also need to interpret the days
of Genesis 1 as being something other than 24-hour days.
Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 11 2003 - 20:07:29 EDT