What did God mean by this?

What did God mean by this?

Why would you interpret that as god saying anything?

What did writers/editors of Genesis mean by this? Seriously, what did they mean by leaving two contradicting accounts side by side and never changing them?

The same thing they meant by leaving stuff out of the bible that was still recognized as canonical.
>we cannot decide what to put in there so we pretty much roll on it

Is that really it? It seems so esoteric.

bump

Genesis is a creative description of man's departure from nature. Some parts suggest a focused reference to the archaic civilization situated in the area of the Persian gulf

...

Column 1: God's account of Creation from Day One.

Column 2: Adam's account of Creation from Day Six.

If you weren't so retarded, you wouldn't ask such retarded questions. You'd actually read something and learn something.

There needs to be about a dozen more steps leading down.

Because the Torah was directly dictated to Moses by God, according to Christian and Jewish tradition.

do cathos still believe this?

No, they don't believe in the bible at all. They have supplanted it entirely with their own traditions.

...

Probably they came from separate oral traditions and including both was a way to make the text acceptable to both traditions.

lol you dope I did look into this before I started this thread, nowhere did I find this backwards ass claim you just made that explains NONE of the contradictions presented.

literalism isn't christian tradition.

To this day I still can't tell what the fuck you guys are talking about, they are both accounts of the same events, one is just an account more focused on other things.

This isn’t a Veeky Forums debate it’s been an ongoing debate in Theology since Jewish Theology has existed. Genesis 1 states clearly which days God created what, then Genesis 2 completely rearranges creation, and even gives God a new name, making it really, really look like 1 and 2 came from two different sources.

It's not a theory. It's how its written. Creation from Day One to Day Seven is God's account, and Day Six is Adam's.

Your spectacular lack of research skills is really not my problem.

God “had formed” these creatures, as some other translations have it (e.g. ESV, NIV, etc.) For example, Genesis 2:19 in the NIV states:

Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them. (emphasis mine)
This rendering eliminates any problem with the chronology because it refers to what God had already done earlier in Creation Week. This would mean that the plants (Genesis 2:9) and the animals (Genesis 2:19) had already been formed by God earlier in Creation Week. William Tyndale was the first to translate an English Bible directly from the original languages,3 and He also translated the verb in its pluperfect form.

And after that the Lord God had made of the earth all manner beasts of the field, and all manner fowls of the air, he brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them. And as Adam called all manner living beasts: even so are their names. (Tyndale, Genesis 2:19)

Genesis 2 does no such thing.

Literally 30 seconds on Google, you non-researching piece of dogshit.

woah it's almost as if the two accounts have different emphases and different but complementary theological implications

The first man and woman was actually created in one body as some sort Siamese twin thing.

fucking sue me ok i watched the yale lecture on the bible i thought that bitch knew what she was talking about. when you said “adam’s account” originally i completely misinterpreted it. makes sense now, thanks.

>This rendering eliminates any problem with the chronology because it refers to what God had already done earlier in Creation Week

Except it says that God decided to create the animals after seeing that the man was alone. BTFO.

>18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

its a test

It doesn't say that he created the animals after he created Adam, and besides he ended up creating Eve for the purpose of companionship anyways.

>It doesn't say that he created the animals after he created Adam
Yes it does. Translating it as pluperfect is incorrect. Greek uses the aorist and Hebrew uses the perfect.

>and besides he ended up creating Eve for the purpose of companionship anyways.
After seeing that none of the animals made an adequate companion.

>And after that the Lord God had made of the earth all manner beasts of the field, and all manner fowls of the air, he brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them. And as Adam called all manner living beasts: even so are their names. (Tyndale, Genesis 2:19)
Nigger, that implies he brought the animals to Adam right after he created them, not that he created them a while ago. When you're reading archaic English, "after that x had done y" means "after x did y".

Or to put it more precisely, it means "after it was the case that the Lord God had created the animals." Meaning it wasn't the case before this sentence, then it was, then he brought the animals to Adam.