• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God's Creation, and Some Misconceptions

101G

Well-Known Member
Why does it matter whether a story implies a certain individual person had already been pregnant if the truth is that there were likely *never* less than 5,000 to 10,000 humans as demonstrated by genetic evidence?
are you sure of those number? and yes, it matters if she had been pregnant before the fall intro sin. now a question to you.

when God formed Eve, Adam said bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh, what happen to blood of my blood? was she genetically. from Adam or genetically "of" Adam? can you tell us what happen to them genetically without blood?. I'll be looking for your answer.

101G.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
This is a good lecture on how Genesis is 2 contradictory stories.


Genesis 1
Earth - watery
creation - 6 days
order - trees, animals, humans
man - created last
domain - the earth
woman - created simultaneously

genesis 2
earth - dusty
creation - one day
order - humans, trees, animals
man - created first
domain - Eden
Woman - rib

He reads both stories as separate stories without changing the words. Sounds a lot like 2 stories were put into the text. He claims they also match the 2 stories in the flood story.
And this is why it's better to read the stories in sequence. I'll watch the video, and we'll see how much he gets wrong.

Basically, the idea is, Gen 2 is day 8, and it describes the creation of eden. If you carefully read Gen 1, you'll see that there is no man and women delivered to the earth. That happens in the garden.

There's really only one little issue, and that's the detail about needing the rain for the plants to grow. And that is rather easily explained if a person understands the different names of God and their significance.

ETA: OK, I watched it, my comments are below in the next post. he made by my count 5 errors. And he repeated those errors multiple times throughout. The biggest one was saying that the story could only be read one way. But then he contradicts himself later in the lecture. And yes, he changed the words. Yes, his bullet point list is wrong. And yes, he made those mistakes in spite of being a PHD at Yale Divinity.
 
Last edited:

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
This is a good lecture on how Genesis is 2 contradictory stories.
0:00 - 6:00 introductory remarks

8:14 Important note: He says "male and female he created them". Correct. Not man and woman, but masculine and feminine were created. Gen 1 on day 6.

8:22 he just changed the story, and said "man and woman were created simultaneously" No, that's not in the story, yet.

Note: He talks about hebrew grammar, but he misquoted the verse. So, there's a bit of a credibillty grab here, claiming to know the Hebrew, most people in the audience probably don't. And now they may not question what he's saying.

8:50 He puts up on the screen that "humans" were created on day 6. No.

Also note. The 7 days of creation didn't begin and end in Gen 1. The 7 days of creation occur in both Gen 1 and Gen 2. This is important. There aren't chapters originally in hese scrolls. The chapters are a late addition. So, if a person hears, "There's a creation story in Gen 1. And then another creation story in Gen 2. They will naturally think, oh, they're two seperate stories. But, the story flows seemlessly.

9:05 he says "On the day Lord God made earth and heaven". Yes, correct.

Before God created, that's the beginning of the process. Created like coming up with an idea. Made is different. Made implies completion. When was it made? when was it completed? After God rested, after so now we're talking about the 8th day. Here's the verse, notice it's in Gen 2.

2:2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made.​

9:10, he asks, which day is it that the heavens an earth were made? Good question.

9:35 "There was no rain in Genesis 1" Correct.

9:43 "The land was damp from it's chaotic watery state" Wrong. The land was dry.

Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so.
9:48 here he makes an assumption. he correctly reads the verse, there was no rain, and there is no man to till the earth. but, he assumes that this means that man is needed for the plants to grow. that's not part of the story. then he calls out to the crowd "Man isn't created until day what? ... " It's inaudible but I'm guessing someone said "day 6". So, there's a bit of social pressure happening here.

10:05 he ackowledges that the earth is now dry, but missed that this happened in Gen 1.

10:15 "And the Lord God formed man from the dust"... yes. Now if only he would pay attention to the details. Created vs. formed vs. made... God vs. Lord God ( it's more apparent in the Hebrew these are different )

10:38 "Man was created on day 6 and there was a lady wih him" wrong. masculine feminine were created and they remained with God in Gen 1. A careful reading of the story, preferrably from a Jewish source will confirm this. ( It could be the KJV gets this right, I don't know ).

10:50, he gets it right that Lord God made a garden, but he's forgotten how one makes a garden. You clear the ground first. Then he insists that all of this aready happened, but it hasn't. The whole problem honestly is what he said at the beginning. "There's only one way to read this story." Poor poor Dr. Baden. That's a terrible way to approach these stories. As he great Rabbi Ben Bag said... "Turn it, and turn it..." These are Jewish stories. There is no 1 way. There's always another way.

11:07 He's confused about the animals and plants being made in the garden. why? It's a different place. another group of plants, another group of animals, made in the garden. It's simple. This is day 8. Anyway, the wording in the Hebrew is different, reding it in english makes it sound the same. technically, the animals in Gen 1 were made of the earth. The animals in Gen 2 were made from the ground. They were different.

11:52 "No one can tellyou a single story that takes into account all the details of the bible". I don't know if he can say that. How does he know, has he studied with Rabbis? Does he know Midrash? That's where a lot of these answers can be found. And he says, there are two stories here. No. It doesn't have to be read that way. That's one way to read it, but it doesn;t make sense split up like that. It makes more sense to read it sequenially. There were no chapters originally.

12:24, OK, now he goes through the bullet points

1) Was the earth watery or dusty? Dry and Dusty in both.
2) How long does creation take? 7 days, no contradiction, Eden was made on day 8.
3) Whats the order of creation? The order of creation is in Gen 1. People were not formed and built until Eden. The plants and animals in Eden were different plants and animals.
4) What is man's domain? is he supposed to fill the earth? Or he supposed to hang out forever in a garden? That is answered in Gen 3. He was supposed to start out in the garden, eat the apple and descend to the earth to complete his mission.
5) What about woman is she created simultaneously in the image of God, or secondarily to man in the image of rib? ( That's cute ). Woman was not created in gen 1. Masculine feminine were created in the image of the likeness of God. And woman was built ( literal translation of the text) from a rib. Building is complicated... much more complicated than forming. So yes, Gen 2 makes sense. Women's biology is much much more complicated than men.

13:03 "If one of these stories is true, by definition the other story cannot be true." well. Who says they need to be true. But the stories don't have to contraic each other, if a person pays attention to the details. Again, the most complicated part is the plants needing rain. And that can be explained. But it needs Hebrew.

13:49 I like the point he's making, but he's changed the story. Technically Gen 2 is far more eco-friendly. And in Gen 1 people are supposed to positively dominate the natural world. So, this one is ... wrong. It's going on the list. :D

14:00 gender rights? feminine is absolutely created in the likeness of the image of God and equal to masculine. There is no way around it. And Gen 2 is also pro women. Thechnically woman is superior to man. Gen 3 is where gender rights takes a huge leap backwards. But, that doesn't fit the theme that the stories are incompatible.

15:09 "If there are two contradictory stories..." Or if they're not two contradictory stories?

16:23 OK, I like what he's saying here. He's saying that the bible if full of differing opinions. OK. So how come at the beginning and all throughout he's saying that Gen 1 and Gen 2 have to be read in 1 way and 1 way only. That's hypocritical.

16:50 There is no one truth, they're all equally valid... Yes! So, apply that to the oiginal rigid assumption, they must be two different stories and can't be read in sequence.

17:52 - Ooooh. He's brining Talmud! Love it. No sarcasm. "Enough you're both right." So.... guess what that means? The story can be read in sequence, and Dr. Baden was wrong, and right. Both. Love it.

He reads both stories as separate stories without changing the words
Yup, he changes the words, Joel. Significantly changes the words.
He claims they also match the 2 stories in the flood story.
weird, I missed that, and I listened very carefully from beginning to end. Are you sure that's in there, and you're not confusing two different videos?
 
Last edited:

101G

Well-Known Member
8:14 Important note: He says "male and female he created them". Correct. Not man and woman, but masculine and feminine were created. Gen 1 on day 6.
Bingo, you're on the right Rod, 100
5 correct, the GENDERS was created on Day 6.

and also in the video he said only DAY in chapter.... he missed the first half of the scripture. Genesis 2:4 "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,"

yes, "DAY" as in 1st DAY, 2nd DAY... and so on.

be blessed and keep up the Good work for the Lord.

it's amazing how ignorant these so-called scholars can be.

101G
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
How would you prove that? It seems that the scriptures agree with him.
For the record, I don't think he's lying, but, the scriptures don't agree with him.
  1. Gen 1 is the beginning / Gen 2 is not the beginning
  2. Gen 2 is the "day that earth and heaven were made". That would be the 6th day.
    • Previously I said Gen 2 was the 8th day, I think I was wrong about that
  3. The earth became dry in Gen 1 and was dry in Gen 2 until after the mist
  4. The plants did not sprout up in Gen 1, that's in Gen 2 (Hebrew is needed to see this)
  5. The animals in Gen 1 are not the same as the animals in Gen 2
  6. Gen 1 describes masculine and feminine being created, Gen 2 is when they were formed and built
  7. Since Gen 2 is the 6th day, there is no contradiction between Gen 1 and Gen 2 regarding man and woman and the animals regardless of how the Hebrew is read.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
For the record, I don't think he's lying, but, the scriptures don't agree with him.
  1. Gen 1 is the beginning / Gen 2 is not the beginning
  2. Gen 2 is the "day that earth and heaven were made". That would be the 6th day.
    • Previously I said Gen 2 was the 8th day, I think I was wrong about that
  3. The earth became dry in Gen 1 and was dry in Gen 2 until after the mist
  4. The plants did not sprout up in Gen 1, that's in Gen 2 (Hebrew is needed to see this)
  5. The animals in Gen 1 are not the same as the animals in Gen 2
  6. Gen 1 describes masculine and feminine being created, Gen 2 is when they were formed and built
  7. Since Gen 2 is the 6th day, there is no contradiction between Gen 1 and Gen 2 regarding man and woman and the animals regardless of how the Hebrew is read.
The problem is that for Hebrew it is hard for others to see if you are being accurate or if he is.

At any rate since it is pure myth does it make any difference?
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The problem is that for Hebrew it is hard for others to see if you are being accurate or if he is.
It's hard to see it, even without the Hebrew. You have to pay very close attention to what he says.

The clearest example is the land. He says that the land was wet in Gen 1, and dry in Gen 2. That is false, and easily seen in virtually every translation available.

Here's a list of translations of Gen 1:9. every single one says he ground is dry. Genesis 1:9 Parallel: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Here's a list of translations of Gen 1:10. Every single one says he ground is dry. Genesis 1:10 Parallel: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

"Dry land" is repeated in two consective verses, and he ignores it.

At any rate since it is pure myth does it make any difference?
Yes! It's foolish to blindly follow what people say about the bible stories, especially when they say there's only one way to read it. PHD or no PHD it's important to go back to the original source, ideally, to the original language to reconcile contradictions.

BTW, did you watch the video?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It's hard to see it, even without the Hebrew. You have to pay very close attention to what he says.

The clearest example is the land. He says that the land was wet in Gen 1, and dry in Gen 2. That is false, and easily seen in virtually every translation available.

Here's a list of translations of Gen 1:9. every single one says he ground is dry. Genesis 1:9 Parallel: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Here's a list of translations of Gen 1:10. Every single one says he ground is dry. Genesis 1:10 Parallel: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

"Dry land" is repeated in two consective verses, and he ignores it.


Yes! It's foolish to blindly follow what people say about the bible stories, especially when they say there's only one way to read it. PHD or no PHD it's important to go back to the original source, ideally, to the original language to reconcile contradictions.

BTW, did you watch the video?
I did not watch that particular video, but I am aware of the hypothesis that there were two different versions melded together.

At any rate I do not personally use the differences between 1 and 2 to argue against it. I merely show how either version has been shown to be incorrect.
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Gen 1 is the beginning / Gen 2 is not the beginning
I believe Genesis 2 is the detail account in Genesis 1, supportive scripture, Genesis 2:4 "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,"

"These" what? days, Listen to the definition provided by Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English for the term "These". These is opposed to those, as this is to that, and when two persons or things or collections of things are named, these refers to the things or persons which are nearest in place or order, or which are last mentioned.

so, "These" are generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created in EACH "DAY". day 1, day 2, day 3.... ect. thisn is just too easy not to understand.

The plants did not sprout up in Gen 1, that's in Gen 2 (Hebrew is needed to see this)
not saying that what was stated is right or wrong, but consider this. Genesis 1:10 "And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:11 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."

here the term "bring" in Hebrew is,
H1876 דָּשָׁא dasha' (daw-shaw') v.
to sprout.
[a primitive root]
KJV: bring forth, spring.

I checked this at bible Hub with the Hebrew, and the interlinear, also I checked it out at My Hebrew Bible | genesis chapter 1
and also at the complete Jewish bible, Bere**** - Genesis - Chapter 1 (Parshah Bere****) - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible (chabad.org)

they all say the same thing in Genesis 1:11 that they sprouted, meaning (of a plant) put forth shoots.

check it out and get back with me on this. I would like to hear what you have to say on it.

thanks in advance,

101G,
 

101G

Well-Known Member
No, hardly. I know that the work is fictional. That is not "denying". But it can be interesting to see how it is interpreted.
well interpert all then, if as you say it's fictional, be interested in all then, else as I said, that's being a hypocrite.

101G.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I did not watch that particular video, but I am aware of the hypothesis that there were two different versions melded together.
Well, I like this scholar. The main point of the lecture is that there's no 1 right way to read the bible. But, in getting there, he attempts to discredit anyone who reads the Gen 1 and 2 differently than he does. It's a total contradiction.
At any rate I do not personally use the differences between 1 and 2 to argue against it. I merely show how either version has been shown to be incorrect.
Well, showing it's incorrect is pretty easy, right? I'm involved in another debate that is attempting to go much farther, the claims are much grander, and the argument is "They're scholars, they *must* have fully researched it. Here's their conclusion." Repeatedly it's been shown that the scholars brought are not experts of the Hebrew bible.

This particular scholar has been brought in that debate. And this is a great example of how a PHD scholar misses details, exaggerates their position, and either doesn't fully research the topic, or ignores the counter arguments. And this isn't the only scholar who has done that, in that debate.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I believe Genesis 2 is the detail account in Genesis 1, supportive scripture, Genesis 2:4 "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,"

"These" what? days, Listen to the definition provided by Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English for the term "These". These is opposed to those, as this is to that, and when two persons or things or collections of things are named, these refers to the things or persons which are nearest in place or order, or which are last mentioned.

so, "These" are generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created in EACH "DAY". day 1, day 2, day 3.... ect. thisn is just too easy not to understand.
I agree, except, I am thinking it's all on 1 day, day 6. The problem I see in the above is "day" is singular.

"in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," Made is the keyword for me.

When was it made? The creation process started in Gen 1:1. And everything was finished being made on day 6. Refer to Gen 1:31 & Gen 2:1. Remember, there's no chapter breaks.

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
So, what is the "day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens"? It's the 6th day. That's how I'm reading it.

not saying that what was stated is right or wrong, but consider this. Genesis 1:10 "And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:11 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."

here the term "bring" in Hebrew is,
H1876 דָּשָׁא dasha' (daw-shaw') v.
to sprout.
[a primitive root]
KJV: bring forth, spring.

I checked this at bible Hub with the Hebrew, and the interlinear, also I checked it out at My Hebrew Bible | genesis chapter 1
and also at the complete Jewish bible, Bere**** - Genesis - Chapter 1 (Parshah Bere****) - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible (chabad.org)

they all say the same thing in Genesis 1:11 that they sprouted, meaning (of a plant) put forth shoots.

check it out and get back with me on this. I would like to hear what you have to say on it.

thanks in advance,

101G,
OK. The first thing is, "sprout" in Hebrew is kind of a famous word. You know it in english as "branch", but technically it's "sprout". Take a look at Zechariah 6:12. Hopefully your lexicon will confirm, his name is "sprout" and he will "sprout forth". So that's the first clue. That's what stands out to me, when I look at the plants in Gen 1. They don't sprout up and out, because I know the word for sprout up and out, and that's not it.

If you look at the hebrew, this word for sprout, "Tzemach", is missing from Gen 1, but it shows up in Gen 2.

Screenshot_20230128_143914.jpg


Here's Zechariah 6:12:

יב וְאָֽמַרְתָּ֚ אֵלָיו֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר כֹּ֥ה אָמַ֛ר יְהֹוָ֥ה צְבָא֖וֹת לֵאמֹ֑ר הִנֵּה־אִ֞ישׁ צֶ֚מַח שְׁמוֹ֙ וּמִתַּחְתָּ֣יו יִצְמָ֔ח וּבָנָ֖ה אֶת־הֵיכַ֥ל יְהֹוָֽה​

12 And you shall speak to him, saying, "So said the Lord of Hosts, saying: Behold a man whose name is the Sprout, who will sprout up out of his place and build the Temple of the Lord.
Here's Genesis 2:9

טוַ יַּצְמַ֞ח יְהֹוָ֤ה אֱלֹהִים֙ מִן־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה כָּל־עֵ֛ץ נֶחְמָ֥ד לְמַרְאֶ֖ה וְט֣וֹב לְמַֽאֲכָ֑ל וְעֵ֤ץ הַֽחַיִּים֙ בְּת֣וֹךְ הַגָּ֔ן וְעֵ֕ץ הַדַּ֖עַת ט֥וֹב וָרָֽע​

9 And the Lord God caused to sprout from the ground every tree pleasant to see and good to eat, and the Tree of Life in the midst of the garden, and the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil.
So, there's zero ambiguity here. We know what Tzemach is, it's sprouting up and out. That's from Zechariah who says "Behold a man whose name is the Sprout, who will sprout up out of his place." Thats the word in Gen 2:9, and this is happening, "min ha'adamah" "from the ground". The word "min" is "from" or "out of", that's it. No other alternate meanings. See here: Klein Dictionary, מִן 1

So, what's happening in Genesis 1:11-12? It's kind of mysterious. We could conclude like so many that these are two different conflicting creation stories, but, we don't have to.
Here's Genesis 1:11 only in Hebrew for now.

יא וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֗ים תַּדְשֵׁ֤א הָאָ֨רֶץ֙ דֶּ֗שֶׁא עֵ֚שֶׂב מַזְרִ֣יעַ זֶ֔רַע עֵ֣ץ פְּרִ֞י עֹ֤שֶׂה פְּרִי֙ לְמִינ֔וֹ אֲשֶׁ֥ר זַרְעוֹ־ב֖וֹ עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן

Note, this is read left to right, not right to left. It's backwards of what you are used to. So, going from left to right, notice, where's the sprout? It's not there, no tzemach. Instead we have a repeating pair of words. You ID'd the first one correctly coming from the root "dasha". But that same word is essentially repeated a word later. This happens in Hebrew. What's happening is, the noun "grass" is becoming a verb. It's not apparent in english because the word sprout is so different from the word grass. But in hebrew, the grass is grassing. Yes, super weird, but that's what it says.

Now, I said this is mysterious. Why? Let's take a look at the verb "grassing" or "to grass something"

Screenshot_20230128_150714.jpg


So, this particular word, as it's written only occurs one time in the entire Tanach. That's pretty mysterious. And, if we look back to the origin of the word, it comes from the idea of swelling. Like a seed that's germinating.

The last part is to consider that here, the plants are sprouting "Al Ha'aretz" "עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ". Remember how I said, "Min" has no ambiguity. It's "from" or "out of"? Well, this says "Al" and "Al" is a little ambiguous. There is an alternate meaning. Yes, it's usually translated as "on" or "above" or "upon". But it also means "towards".

Screenshot_20230128_151433.jpg


In Gen 1, they sprout towards the earth, and after the rain in Gen 2 they sprout up and out of the ground. Makes sense, right?

So, yes, we can still use the word sprout, in Gen 1:9, but it's not sprouting up, it's swelling, or sprouting down *towards* the earth. Compared to Gen 2:9 where it's sprouting up and out from the ground. What's the difference? Rain. It needed rain to sprout up and out.

Genesis 1:11

יא וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֗ים תַּדְשֵׁ֤א הָאָ֨רֶץ֙ דֶּ֗שֶׁא עֵ֚שֶׂב מַזְרִ֣יעַ זֶ֔רַע עֵ֣ץ פְּרִ֞י עֹ֤שֶׂה פְּרִי֙ לְמִינ֔וֹ אֲשֶׁ֥ר זַרְעוֹ־ב֖וֹ עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן​

11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, towards the earth," and it was so.
The only detail left is dealing with Gen 1:12. Here, "brought forth" doesn't have to mean it sprouted, it can also mean "resulted" or "produced". The seeds were in the ground, the roots were there.

12 And the earth produced grass, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and fruit trees, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.​
 
Last edited:

101G

Well-Known Member
I agree, except, I am thinking it's all on 1 day, day 6. The problem I see in the above is "day" is singular.
yes, because each day is a different DAY. something happen on DAY one that didn't happen on DAY 2. so on and so on. so, DAY singular is correct.
"day" is singular.
remember, DAY here is NOT, I repeat, is NOT the same as days in a solar 24 hr. day as stated on DAY four. no. thousand or even millions of solar years could have elapsed in one CREATION DAY.
"in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," Made is the keyword for me.
was not EVERYTHING .... "CREATED" in the beginning? and everything else was MADE? was not the sun and moon .... "CREATED" in the beginning, and was made to shine on day four? well and was not the plants and the animals already CTRATED. in the beginning, and was brought forth from the waters or the earth? go back and read. did not the EARTH bring forth? so it was already in the Earth. meaning already ... CREATED.
When was it made? The creation process started in Gen 1:1. And everything was finished being made on day 6. Refer to Gen 1:31 & Gen 2:1. Remember, there's no chapter breaks.
that's why God had ... A Day ,,,, for everything he created. notice, Genesis 1:11 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."

who brought fort? answer, the EARTH. and did the EARTH bring forth plants on DAY four? no, do you see the ORDER NOW? Genesis 2:4 "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,"
So, what is the "day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens"? It's the 6th day. That's how I'm reading it.
NO, he made, made, made the Earth and the Heavens in ORDER, in, in, in, the DAYm be it DAY 1, 2. 3. 4. 5. or 6.
Remember when he CREATED the Earth and the Heavens, they were ,,,, Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
understand now?
OK. The first thing is, "sprout" in Hebrew is kind of a famous word. You know it in english as "branch", but technically it's "sprout". Take a look at Zechariah 6:12. Hopefully your lexicon will confirm, his name is "sprout" and he will "sprout forth". So that's the first clue. That's what stands out to me, when I look at the plants in Gen 1. They don't sprout up and out, because I know the word for sprout up and out, and that's not it.

If you look at the hebrew, this word for sprout, "Tzemach", is missing from Gen 1, but it shows up in Gen 2.
in Gen 1 as I showed, "Let the earth bring forth grass". bring here is to sprout. and it's the same in Genesis 2. listen, Genesis 2:5 "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."
grew here is the Hebrew word,
H7880 שִׂיחַ siyach (see'-ach) n-m.
1. a shoot (as if uttered or put forth).
2. (generally) shrubbery.
[from H7878]
KJV: bush, plant, shrub.
Root(s): H7878

so chapter 2 is saying the same thing as chapter 1
So, what's happening in Genesis 1:11-12? It's kind of mysterious. We could conclude like so many that these are two different conflicting creation stories, but, we don't have to.
no, nothing mysterious, just the same account with more detail
11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, towards the earth," and it was so.
are you serious? do not the ROOT GROW toward the Earth?

101G
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
0:00 - 6:00 introductory remarks

8:14 Important note: He says "male and female he created them". Correct. Not man and woman, but masculine and feminine were created. Gen 1 on day 6.

8:22 he just changed the story, and said "man and woman were created simultaneously" No, that's not in the story, yet.

Note: He talks about hebrew grammar, but he misquoted the verse. So, there's a bit of a credibillty grab here, claiming to know the Hebrew, most people in the audience probably don't. And now they may not question what he's saying.

8:50 He puts up on the screen that "humans" were created on day 6. No.

Also note. The 7 days of creation didn't begin and end in Gen 1. The 7 days of creation occur in both Gen 1 and Gen 2. This is important. There aren't chapters originally in hese scrolls. The chapters are a late addition. So, if a person hears, "There's a creation story in Gen 1. And then another creation story in Gen 2. They will naturally think, oh, they're two seperate stories. But, the story flows seemlessly.

9:05 he says "On the day Lord God made earth and heaven". Yes, correct.

Before God created, that's the beginning of the process. Created like coming up with an idea. Made is different. Made implies completion. When was it made? when was it completed? After God rested, after so now we're talking about the 8th day. Here's the verse, notice it's in Gen 2.

2:2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made.​

9:10, he asks, which day is it that the heavens an earth were made? Good question.

9:35 "There was no rain in Genesis 1" Correct.

9:43 "The land was damp from it's chaotic watery state" Wrong. The land was dry.

Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so.
9:48 here he makes an assumption. he correctly reads the verse, there was no rain, and there is no man to till the earth. but, he assumes that this means that man is needed for the plants to grow. that's not part of the story. then he calls out to the crowd "Man isn't created until day what? ... " It's inaudible but I'm guessing someone said "day 6". So, there's a bit of social pressure happening here.

10:05 he ackowledges that the earth is now dry, but missed that this happened in Gen 1.

10:15 "And the Lord God formed man from the dust"... yes. Now if only he would pay attention to the details. Created vs. formed vs. made... God vs. Lord God ( it's more apparent in the Hebrew these are different )

10:38 "Man was created on day 6 and there was a lady wih him" wrong. masculine feminine were created and they remained with God in Gen 1. A careful reading of the story, preferrably from a Jewish source will confirm this. ( It could be the KJV gets this right, I don't know ).

10:50, he gets it right that Lord God made a garden, but he's forgotten how one makes a garden. You clear the ground first. Then he insists that all of this aready happened, but it hasn't. The whole problem honestly is what he said at the beginning. "There's only one way to read this story." Poor poor Dr. Baden. That's a terrible way to approach these stories. As he great Rabbi Ben Bag said... "Turn it, and turn it..." These are Jewish stories. There is no 1 way. There's always another way.

11:07 He's confused about the animals and plants being made in the garden. why? It's a different place. another group of plants, another group of animals, made in the garden. It's simple. This is day 8. Anyway, the wording in the Hebrew is different, reding it in english makes it sound the same. technically, the animals in Gen 1 were made of the earth. The animals in Gen 2 were made from the ground. They were different.

11:52 "No one can tellyou a single story that takes into account all the details of the bible". I don't know if he can say that. How does he know, has he studied with Rabbis? Does he know Midrash? That's where a lot of these answers can be found. And he says, there are two stories here. No. It doesn't have to be read that way. That's one way to read it, but it doesn;t make sense split up like that. It makes more sense to read it sequenially. There were no chapters originally.

12:24, OK, now he goes through the bullet points

1) Was the earth watery or dusty? Dry and Dusty in both.
2) How long does creation take? 7 days, no contradiction, Eden was made on day 8.
3) Whats the order of creation? The order of creation is in Gen 1. People were not formed and built until Eden. The plants and animals in Eden were different plants and animals.
4) What is man's domain? is he supposed to fill the earth? Or he supposed to hang out forever in a garden? That is answered in Gen 3. He was supposed to start out in the garden, eat the apple and descend to the earth to complete his mission.
5) What about woman is she created simultaneously in the image of God, or secondarily to man in the image of rib? ( That's cute ). Woman was not created in gen 1. Masculine feminine were created in the image of the likeness of God. And woman was built ( literal translation of the text) from a rib. Building is complicated... much more complicated than forming. So yes, Gen 2 makes sense. Women's biology is much much more complicated than men.

13:03 "If one of these stories is true, by definition the other story cannot be true." well. Who says they need to be true. But the stories don't have to contraic each other, if a person pays attention to the details. Again, the most complicated part is the plants needing rain. And that can be explained. But it needs Hebrew.

13:49 I like the point he's making, but he's changed the story. Technically Gen 2 is far more eco-friendly. And in Gen 1 people are supposed to positively dominate the natural world. So, this one is ... wrong. It's going on the list. :D

14:00 gender rights? feminine is absolutely created in the likeness of the image of God and equal to masculine. There is no way around it. And Gen 2 is also pro women. Thechnically woman is superior to man. Gen 3 is where gender rights takes a huge leap backwards. But, that doesn't fit the theme that the stories are incompatible.

15:09 "If there are two contradictory stories..." Or if they're not two contradictory stories?

16:23 OK, I like what he's saying here. He's saying that the bible if full of differing opinions. OK. So how come at the beginning and all throughout he's saying that Gen 1 and Gen 2 have to be read in 1 way and 1 way only. That's hypocritical.

16:50 There is no one truth, they're all equally valid... Yes! So, apply that to the oiginal rigid assumption, they must be two different stories and can't be read in sequence.

17:52 - Ooooh. He's brining Talmud! Love it. No sarcasm. "Enough you're both right." So.... guess what that means? The story can be read in sequence, and Dr. Baden was wrong, and right. Both. Love it.


Yup, he changes the words, Joel. Significantly changes the words.

weird, I missed that, and I listened very carefully from beginning to end. Are you sure that's in there, and you're not confusing two different videos?


Some of those apologetics just admits there is a problem. I don't read Hebrew so I cannot weigh in. Unfortunately you are not a Phd scholar in the Hebrew Bible so your input doesn't count. The rules you have established. As if you are going to correct a Harvard grad who now lectures on the OT at Yale Divinity school.
But the Documentary Hypothesis it isn'y my argument, write to Dr Baden and tell him you think he is wrong. I'll say right now he will correct you.

Women's biology is "more complex"....LOL is that right? For an infinite deity who creates universes a female is that much harder?

Baden mentioned that there are a number of apologetics that try to reconcile these stories but I didn't think they were that bad??
 

101G

Well-Known Member
You need evidence. YOu are not a PhD in that field either so source one please. I'm not interested in denial.
nor I when someone LIES.

Source "God", the bible. ..... and it's in print.... (smile), now let's deal with the "WRITTEN" evidence which do not change.
'
191G.
 
Top