-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Perhaps He did to show that He make the creation of man out of the lowliest substance on earth. Which reminds me of.....
1 Corinthians 1:26-29
"For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29 so that no man may boast before God."
1 Corinthians 1:26-29
"For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29 so that no man may boast before God."
The SP is Hebrew too, and easily arguably older than the MT. And the LXX was translated from Hebrew; it's not like it was invented out of thin air.
Anyways, the point I was trying to make was that someone knowledgeable in Hebrew seems to have felt the need to clarify the verse. The MT, which, btw, I think was the original reading here due to it's difficulty, could be understood to be saying that God completed his work on/in the 7th day and then also rested on the 7th day. It could be read to imply that God did a little bit of work on the 7th day before he rested. Someone seems to have understood the potential problem because we see a "clarification" in the SP and LXX. It also may be the case that the scribe of Targum Onkelos took it the same way [1].
Rashi also understood the difficulty here. Rashi's explanation in his commentary was that God worked up to the wire, to the exact time (a "hairsbreadth") that day 6 shifted to day 7, then he rested, but it had the appearance that God might have worked on the Sabbath [2]. The point for this post though is that Rashi understood how that verse could be read.
In any case, I think I understand what the author was getting at - God created for 6 days and rested on the 7th. I'm not saying that God actually did work on the 7th day, but simply that Genesis could possibly be read that way, and given that this observation over a thousand years old, it's not like I'm the first one to come up with this. Gen 2:1-2 isn't exactly clear.
[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=B...nepage&q=talmud god worked on 7th day&f=false
[2] Genesis - Chapter 2 (Parshah Bereishit) - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible
Anyways, the point I was trying to make was that someone knowledgeable in Hebrew seems to have felt the need to clarify the verse. The MT, which, btw, I think was the original reading here due to it's difficulty, could be understood to be saying that God completed his work on/in the 7th day and then also rested on the 7th day. It could be read to imply that God did a little bit of work on the 7th day before he rested. Someone seems to have understood the potential problem because we see a "clarification" in the SP and LXX. It also may be the case that the scribe of Targum Onkelos took it the same way [1].
Rashi also understood the difficulty here. Rashi's explanation in his commentary was that God worked up to the wire, to the exact time (a "hairsbreadth") that day 6 shifted to day 7, then he rested, but it had the appearance that God might have worked on the Sabbath [2]. The point for this post though is that Rashi understood how that verse could be read.
In any case, I think I understand what the author was getting at - God created for 6 days and rested on the 7th. I'm not saying that God actually did work on the 7th day, but simply that Genesis could possibly be read that way, and given that this observation over a thousand years old, it's not like I'm the first one to come up with this. Gen 2:1-2 isn't exactly clear.
[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=B...nepage&q=talmud god worked on 7th day&f=false
[2] Genesis - Chapter 2 (Parshah Bereishit) - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible
H
Why are there two distinctly different creation stories: the first spans Genesis 1:1-2:3 and the second continues from Genesis 2:4 to the end of the third chapter? Do not want to throw a monkey wrench into the study, I am seriously interested in understanding. I have read dozens of commentary on just the first three passages to the point of a blur... even tried the Rabbinical Council of America data base all I found were contradictions from one commentary to another... would like to hear others consciences on this in hopes that a laymen's approach may bring with it clarification...
R
wow, i never thought of that! 
why dust, which is so easily blown away by the slightest movement of air?
why not something more substantial?
the only thing that springs to mind is
But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves (2 Cor 4:7)
but i eagerly look forward to what others think.
why dust, which is so easily blown away by the slightest movement of air?
why not something more substantial?
the only thing that springs to mind is
But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves (2 Cor 4:7)
but i eagerly look forward to what others think.
R
i hadn't thought of this...but it shows that God is economical...he chose to make us from a material that had all of the necessary ingredients so that no other materials had to be added...
as an application i could say that this teaches us to plan carefully whenever we do anything so that we don't end up incurring extra costs from unforeseen necessities...
as an application i could say that this teaches us to plan carefully whenever we do anything so that we don't end up incurring extra costs from unforeseen necessities...
R
some people believe this...but it would not be found in the hebrew text of genesis 1:1-2...they use other passages to derive this belief and then they fit it into a 'gap' that they believe is between genesis 1:1 and genesis 1:2...
i don't want to get too in depth on this though...because i am hoping not to having this thread degenerate into everyone trying to prove their point...
i don't want to get too in depth on this though...because i am hoping not to having this thread degenerate into everyone trying to prove their point...
R
it is a common feature of ancient literature to tell a story first as a general 'big picture' outline and then to retell a part of that story in greater detail...genesis 1:1-2:4 would be the general outline of the story and then the rest of genesis 2 zooms in for a more detailed account of the creation of man and woman which fits into day six in the genesis 1 outline...
R
i think you and psychomom have identified the correct reason...it would make sense that God would make us out of something lowly so that we couldn't claim to be great or worthy by nature...we have to give God credit for anything about us that is special or right or useful...
the question of why God made the woman from adam's rib is much easier...it was so adam would recognize that she was 'bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh'...so he could recognize that she was designed to be his suitable helper...
the question of why God made the woman from adam's rib is much easier...it was so adam would recognize that she was 'bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh'...so he could recognize that she was designed to be his suitable helper...
I am presuming that by SP you are referring to the Syriac Peshitta.
If this is indeed what you are referring to, I want to remind you that the Peshitta is a second century A.D. translation of the Old Testament and parts of the New Testament from the Greek (LXX) to Syrian Aramaic.
The Peshita is NOT a Hebrew translation!!!
The Mesoretic text compiled between the 7th and 10th centuries A.D. differs from the Torah Scrolls only in the addition of vowel pointings and chapter divisions; and is otherwise unchanged from the 6th century B.C. text..
If this is indeed what you are referring to, I want to remind you that the Peshitta is a second century A.D. translation of the Old Testament and parts of the New Testament from the Greek (LXX) to Syrian Aramaic.
The Peshita is NOT a Hebrew translation!!!
The Mesoretic text compiled between the 7th and 10th centuries A.D. differs from the Torah Scrolls only in the addition of vowel pointings and chapter divisions; and is otherwise unchanged from the 6th century B.C. text..
Although I love the Hebrew, the Septuagint is without a doubt, the spiritual translation used by Christ and the Apostles.
I need no further proof of it's authenticity beyond the quotes used of it, by the Authorities of the Faith,
which are Jesus Christ, and His Apostles.
If the Masoretic had the text right, on a spiritual level, then the quotes of these individuals would not contradict the Masoretic rendering of the verses quoted.
The Jews are said in the Word to be the keepers of the Scriptures,
which is the rationale behind the Masoretic being used for translation,
but the Jews are the ones who translated the Septuagint.
Case closed.
The Masoretic is not the same as the Septuagint, and does not match ALL the early scrolls.
My faith is in the words of Christ, not the DSS.
I need no further proof of it's authenticity beyond the quotes used of it, by the Authorities of the Faith,
which are Jesus Christ, and His Apostles.
If the Masoretic had the text right, on a spiritual level, then the quotes of these individuals would not contradict the Masoretic rendering of the verses quoted.
The Jews are said in the Word to be the keepers of the Scriptures,
which is the rationale behind the Masoretic being used for translation,
but the Jews are the ones who translated the Septuagint.
Case closed.
The Masoretic is not the same as the Septuagint, and does not match ALL the early scrolls.
My faith is in the words of Christ, not the DSS.
Last edited:
The garden in Genesis is a picture of believers (A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse).
That is why trees are the plants mentioned in it, not asparagus. Trees are pictures of people in the Bible (A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.) and (that they might be called trees of righteousness,the planting of the LORD).
------------------
Dust is a word for a human (for dust thou art). That is why Satan (the serpent) eats dust (persons)(And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:). Of course, this means that Satan consumes humans spiritually, feeding upon the bad spirit of sinful people.
Someone noticed that God blesses the animals in Genesis. Good noticing. That is because the word blessed is a word always associated with salvation. This is a good way to see that Genesis is written in parable form, since animals must be pictures of people, to have salvation. In like manner, the animals in the ark are pictures of people. Quite frankly, every animal that is mentioned in the Bible is a picture of persons somehow, sometimes including God himself. Here is a good sentence showing a definition of blessed (Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.) and (Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.)
That is why trees are the plants mentioned in it, not asparagus. Trees are pictures of people in the Bible (A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.) and (that they might be called trees of righteousness,the planting of the LORD).
------------------
Dust is a word for a human (for dust thou art). That is why Satan (the serpent) eats dust (persons)(And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:). Of course, this means that Satan consumes humans spiritually, feeding upon the bad spirit of sinful people.
Someone noticed that God blesses the animals in Genesis. Good noticing. That is because the word blessed is a word always associated with salvation. This is a good way to see that Genesis is written in parable form, since animals must be pictures of people, to have salvation. In like manner, the animals in the ark are pictures of people. Quite frankly, every animal that is mentioned in the Bible is a picture of persons somehow, sometimes including God himself. Here is a good sentence showing a definition of blessed (Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.) and (Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.)
Last edited:
Oh you are so wrong. Your approach is like the desert wind drying up the refreshing rain and the hard beating sun.
Oh you do not see the fluffy clouds or the mysterious rainbow, because no one is truly lost or evil, happy of sad, we are all on an LSD trip into eternity lalalalalala
Lol, just joking, but it does remind me of the film yellow submarine by the beatles years ago.
Sorry if this appears flippant, but my kids would love this kind of off piste ideas rather than facing blunt truth.......lalalalala
Oh you do not see the fluffy clouds or the mysterious rainbow, because no one is truly lost or evil, happy of sad, we are all on an LSD trip into eternity lalalalalala
Lol, just joking, but it does remind me of the film yellow submarine by the beatles years ago.
Sorry if this appears flippant, but my kids would love this kind of off piste ideas rather than facing blunt truth.......lalalalala