Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

Gordon,

Taking the sections of Genesis as being marked off by the toledoth clauses,
> the section beginning in 2:4 continues through 4:26 and gives the account of
> the Fall together with background and consequences. It is taken as a given
> that the heavens and earth already exist. These events take place in a
> region of the middle East, not over the whole planet. This is evidenced by
> the geographical references and the fact that no seas or marine creatures
> are mentioned. Thus 'earth' in vv. 5,6 would better be rendered 'land',
> which is the usual translation of this word.

I agree. All of chapter 2 happened in the middle east. The Tigris and
Euphrates are mentioned, and no sea is mentioned. Yet, most consider it to
be a second, more anthropomorphic, creation account. Not an account
building from chapter 1, but a separate source which was an independent
account of the creation of the heavens and the earth. I was trying to point
out the difficulties of trying to find concordism between the Gen 1 and Gen
2 accounts, as well as with the scientific account. It also raises the
difficulty, if we assume all this happened in the middle east, that the best
science says we came out of Africa.

Dick,
The a'dam in the garden, up until 2:22 is not really a man in the sense of
being male. Until the woman (isha) shows up, you don't actually have a man
(ish), just this a'dam figure. It really doesn't become a proper name until
the end of ch. 2, and ch.3. Dr. Iain Provan feels that the best translation
of a'dam up until that point is something more like "groundling",
"dirtling", or (if it hadn't already been stolen by sci-fi) "earthling".
It's not talking about one male human. Please discuss!

Bethany

>
> To say that no plant of the field had yet sprung up due to meteorological
> conditions is different from saying that they had not been created. The
> author presumably expects them to spring up when the conditions are
> favorable. Furthermore these plants are mentioned in 3:18 without there
> having been any discussion of their origin.
>
> The only plants said to have been planted in the Garden of Eden are trees.
> Furthermore planting is not normally thought of as creating but rather
> placing in the ground something that already exists.
>
> It seems to me that the biggest problem for concordism is the forming of
> the animals. However even here we note that the origin of the livestock is
> not mentioned even though Adam gave names to them. There is also no mention
> of the origin of the snake even though he is prominent in the story.
>
> Gordon Brown (ASA member)
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun May 25 16:58:38 2008