THE HOLY BIBLE - Read along

>implying Veeky Forums has anything better to do

do you think that after 4000 years, you're the only one to think this
do you think this is really the nail in the coffin of all Christian theology

I'm just confused that people have noticed this and think it's divinely inspired.

>dude alternating synonyms isn't a basic writing technique used to reduce repetitiveness in prose it's evidence that the work is actually a composite of two different sources

Elohim isn't a plural noun. Grammatically in the sentences of the original Hebrew it's always singular.

The two chapters are from different perspectives focusing on different things. It's kind of like how in movie editing if you just edited all the shots together without any "backtracking" ever the audience would instinctively get lost because you'd lose information and a sense of continuity. Genesis 2 recaps Genesis 1 but with the emphasis on the creation of humans, written more from a human scaled perspective rather than a cosmic perception. It's a perfectly natural and fitting choice and improves our understanding of 1.

>So what did you think about it?
whatever the church tells me to think you fucking heretic

This is correct, insofar as it's the Eastern Orthodox Church! Catholics are mostly right too.
Protestants barely ever, roll of the dice.

Etymologically it is, it's the plural form of El(oah), but of course is used as a singular when referring to God to emphasise his supremacy, as not just another god.

>Grammatically in the sentences of the original Hebrew it's always singular.
That's totally incorrect, the same word is used to refer to groups of divine being where it's certainly plural. For example in Psalm 82:1

>bəqereḇ ’ĕlōhîm yišpōṭ
>in the midst of the gods he holds judgement

They certainly have different perspectives but Genesis 2 isn't a recap of Genesis 1, the order of creation is different, and woman is made after man as opposed to both at the same time. They have different theological purposes, trying to mash them together actually obfuscates their meaning.

Contains one of the funniest verses in the Bible, where the creation of the world is interrupted to tell us how good Havilah's gold is. Yo, did you know they not only have gold, but onyx AND aromatic resin? Sounds like a cool place.

OT god is a compromise between the 12 different gods the tribes of Israel worshipped before banding together. It's basically literature-by-committee and is exactly as focused and consistent as you would expect from that approach.

>That's totally incorrect
Missed the part where we were talking about Genesis 1 and 2? Grammatically it's singular there. Etymology isn't denotation.

>order of creation is different
This assumes that creation is presented in order.

>woman is made after man as opposed to both at the same time
It isn't presented as at the same time. That's something you're reading into the text. You're hopeless.

>doesn't know how spiritual inspiration works

God describes the sequence of creation in Genesis 1, then clarifies its most important details, especially of the sixth day, in Genesis 2. There is no contradiction here, merely a common literary device describing an event from the general to the specific.

>
>It's basically literature-by-committee and is exactly as focused and consistent as you would expect from that approach.

name an inconsistency you find "problematic"

>Veeky Forums discussion the Bible
This is one of the worst things I've ever seen.

Wait, are there people who actually deny that Genesis is a composite of multiple sources?

The seven day formula of Genesis 1:1-2:2 is actually very important, different types of creation are described as happening on specific days culminating in the creation of man and woman on day 6, God's greatest creation "in the image of God he created them". Followed by the consecration of the Sabbath, the seventh day of pious rest. There is also a parallelism between days 1 to 3 and days 4 to 6:

1. light (day)/darkness (night) = 4. sun/moon
2. arrangement of water = 5. fish + birds from waters
3. a) dry land; b) vegetation = 6. a) animals; b) human beings: male/female

So the creation order in Genesis 1:1-2:2 is of paramount importance.

In Genesis 2:2ff God makes man, then he creates companions for man " Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone'", the animals and birds which man names. But none of them suitibly correspond to him, necessitating the creation of woman. In this story, the order is also very important, the animals are made in response to man's need for companionship, and man's naming shows his mastery over the animals. But they are found to be a inadequate partners, resulting in woman. The story makes no sense if the animals are made before man.

This story emphasises the origins of human society, while the previous one is about the divine origin of humanity. The institution of marriage is especially emphasised, woman is created *for* man and after expulsion from the garden marriage is described by God himself "yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you".

Again, to try and mash them together into a synthesis story is to overlook a lot of the theological significance of the stories.

>19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them

>Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky.

>the Lord God had formed

>had formed

Read the commentaries:
biblehub.com/genesis/2-19.htm

>To allege that the Creator's purpose to provide a helpmeet for Adam seeks realization through the production of the animals (Kalisch, Alford) proceeds upon a misapprehension of the proper nexus which binds the thoughts of the historian, and a want of attention to the peculiar structure of Hebrew composition, besides exhibiting Jehovah Elohim in the character of an empiric who only tentatively discovers the sort of partner that is suitable for man. It is not the time, but simply the fact, of the creation of the animals that the historian records. The Vav. consec. does not necessarily involve time-succession, but is frequently employed to indicate thought-sequence (cf. 2:8; 1 Kings 2:13, etc.). The verb (pret.) may also quite legitimately be rendered "had formed (Bush). "Our modern style of expressing the Semitic writer's thought would be this - 'And God brought to Adam the beasts which he had formed (Delitzsch)

>it's divinely inspired
it's divinely inspired at that time. We don't know much
It's different compare to nowadays.
if i put my mindset to the time it is written i do think it's divinely inspired

> he didn't know bible is one of the greatest book ever

You're using either the NIV or a later ESV edition, I can tell. The Hebrew does not imply "had formed", the same form is used for the perfect and pluperfect in Hebrew, but there are ways of indicating pluperfect, (e.g. in Gen 1:31 the author uses a typical means of doing that in Hebrew) in Gen 2:19, the author does not use this form. If Gen 2:19 used a qatal verb the pluperfect would be entirely justified, but it doesn’t. The exact same verb form is translated as the perfect (i.e. just "formed") elsewhere in Genesis 2, such as 2:7.

Here's some translations that don't use "had formed" for 2:19

ESV (2001) - the LORD God formed
(H)CSB - The LORD God formed
KJV - the LORD God formed
NABRE - the LORD God formed
NASB - the LORD God formed
NET - The LORD God formed
NJPS - the LORD God formed
NKJV - the LORD God formed
NRSV - the LORD God formed
RSV - the LORD God formed
YLT - Jehovah God formeth

The fact that your source is a 19th century devotional (not academic) commentary leaves me unconvinced.

Honestly even if you are an out and out athiest, if you are serious about literature you need to read the Bible. Probably won’t regret it either, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Song if Songs, all very good.

...