Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Say what? So in the beginning the earth was fully formed, then later became what is described in Genesis 1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." ??
Dear chuckmann, please notice in the writings below to things:
The same word for "became" in "the earth became chaos and vacant" is the same word for "the human became a living soul."
Please note also in the second article that God did not create the earth chaos and vacant but He created it to be indwelt. So it became chaos and vacant after He created it in Genesis 1:1.
"In reading the remaining thirty verses of this chapter as though they were
an account of the creation of verse one, we confuse our minds, cloud the
Scriptures, and have no room for subsequent facts. Those verses give
details of a week's work. There is no creation in this week until we come to
the fifth day when God creates the living souls in the waters and in the
atmosphere. What the first chapter really does is to tell of God making the
earth fit to be inhabited. And, were it not for the statement of the second
verse, that the earth became waste and vacant, there would be no reason
to give the details of the chapter. That which is waste and vacant cannot
be described as a creation, for it would be a violation of proper sense;
hence we should particularly note that the condition described in verse
two does not refer to a situation in God's creating of the heavens and
earth of verse one. This is confirmed for us in Isaiah 45:18, where we have
the distinct statement that God did not create the earth vacant. Thus,
God's activity from verse three is not the carrying out of what is stated in
verse one; the waste and vacant state arises because of subsequent
happenings.
"This will become clear when it is pointed out that the verb "was" of our
Authorized version is quite misleading. This verb of the Hebrew signifies becomes, and it is often rendered in the Authorized Version by the familiar
words "came to pass," or as in 2:7, man became a living soul. This latter
differs not in sense, but merely in grammatical form. It is evident therefore
that the condition described in verse two is due to subsequent happenings
which give rise to the position of verse two. These are not detailed in the
Scriptures, but references to them are made. Elsewhere they are gathered
together under the word disruption in such places as Matthew 25:34 and
Ephesians 1:4, where the Authorized Version word "foundation" ought to be disruption. " (E.H. Clayton, Unsearchable Riches, vol.38, pp.149,150)
"Not only the scoffers of the last days, but many of the saints, and even
devout scientists who believe the promise of the presence of Christ, are
oblivious of the fact that the earth has already had a double deluge by
means of water, once in Noah's day, which destroyed the "ancient world"
(2 Peter 2:5), and once before, of old, when the "then world" (2 Peter 3:5)
was deluged with water, and perished. So terrible was this cataclysm that
the world, or cosmic system which existed upon it, was destroyed. The
earliest records we have of these two events are found in "Genesis," the
book of the Beginning. The first and greatest of these cataclysms (the
Greek term for DOWN-SURGE, deluge) is mentioned immediately after the
record of creation. Then "the earth became waste and vacant, and
darkness is on the surface of the abyss" (Gen.1:2).
"Nothing could be clearer than Jehovah's insistence
p200 The First Not a Waste
"that He not only created the earth and made it and formed it and
established it, but that He did not create it a waste, as it subsequently
became (Isa.45:18). He uses the very same words for createbra and wastetheu in Isaiah that He used in Genesis. This is hid from us in the
revered Authorized Version, because it renders the word "waste" without
form in Genesis and in vain in Isaiah. To be certain, I have just compared
the two again in the original Hebrew. But anyone can check the matter in
an English Concordance, such as Wigram's or Young's Analytical. The
negative la is the usual one which is used hundreds of times to deny the
following expression.
"A Concordant rendering of Isaiah's words will confirm this (Isa.45:18):
For thus says Yahweh, Creator of the heavens,
He is the One, Elohim, the Former the earth and its Maker.
He Himself established it;
He did not create it a chaos; He formed it to be indwelt.
(A.E. Knoch, Unsearchable Riches, vol.42, pp.199,200)
P.S. it would be beneficial for you to go through the Old Testament and look at all the verses where "became" and "becoming" is used. For instance, was Lot's wife always a pillar of salt of did she "become" a pillar of salt.
Ha ha! I'm not sure how to take or understand that..
Oh, it was a compliment bro. We on 'the dark side' don't come on many theists that will stand up and basically say....'Look, it says what it says...live with it'. Such a rarity.... I was going to preserve you for posterity.
The Documentary Hyopthesis (for those unfamiliar with it) has been one of the major working models for Biblical Scholarship for over a hundred years. It's been modified to a degree with other forms of investigation (Form Criticism, Literary Criticism, etc.), but it still holds an important part in Biblical Scholarship. A fantastic overview of the Documentary Hypothesis (or the JEDP Theory, as another label) can be found in Richard Elliot Friedman's book Who Wrote the Bible? While I don't agree with many of his conclusions, it is still a good introductory book. He has also published a translation of the Pentateuch in which he highlights the different sources in various colors. It is VERY helpful and it is called The Bible: With Sources Revealed. I cannot reccomend this latter book enough!
Thank you again for providing the link, Granpa.
Whopper I take it you are an adherent to this Documentary Hypothesis. Don't know much about it myself but from the links Granpa gave this hypotheses came about in an attempt to reconcile perceived inconsistencies in biblical text. And for me herein is the problem, it is ONLY a hypothesis of man, and it came about for one purpose, that of trying to reconcile what man sees as inconsistencies in the biblical text.
For myself I see NO inconsistency in the two creation account. If one is indeed a prophesy and the other is the workings of God to fulfill that prophesy there is NO inconsistency.
I do not need a man made hypothesis to explain anything away.
Now you could easily say what I put forth is a man made hypothesis also, however the difference is I used scripture to explain scripture in my hypothesis and the Documentary Hypothesis does not.
Quote:
Prophecy?
I do not consider it a prophecy, and neither does the majority of Biblical scholars - whether they be Christian or Jewish. The problem is that it has a very clear meaning, and it retained this meaning for ages - only with the advent of Christianity was there an urge to try to find references to Jesus as the Messiah in the Bible (the Hebrew Bible, or "Old Testament"). With enough searching, and creative allegorizing - virtually anything can be made into a "prophecy" concerning the Messiah.
One of the best ways to approach a text is to do so with an eye to who wrote it, why they wrote it, who they wrote it for and what it means. The last question (what does it mean) can be highly influence by the previous ones. So why does Genesis 3 indicate that there will be enmity between humans and snakes? Well - because there IS enmity between humans and snakes. This an example of an etymological story.
Etymological Stories: Why the Bear has no Tail
These are stories that look at the world, and then try to explain why a certain "thing" is the way it is. For example - why don't bears have long tails like other animals? Well, one story tells us that he once had a long tail which he used for ice-fishing. He fell asleep one day, and the ice hole froze over - effectively trapping him since his tail was down in the water, though the hole. The bear got up to leave, and his tail ripped off. THAT is why the bear has no tail!
It's a wonderful story, isn't it? A common belief among the ancients was that snakes lived forever, because they shed their skins (they weren't biologists, after all heh heh!). Why this is so is told in the Epic of Gilgamesh, where the hero finds a plant that grants one's youth back. His plan is to take it back to his home town, Uruk, plant it, and then everyone can enjoy it's fruits. While taking a swim in a lake, however, he leaves the plant unguarded on the bank, and a snake comes by, eats it, immediately sheds his skin and crawls away! And THAT is why the snake lives forever by shedding his skin, and humans are mortal and must die.
Another thing that the ancients noticed (and many a modern person) is that snakes are generally nasty creatures that will bite you, especially on your foot or lower leg. If you have the unfortunate luck to be bitten by a poisonous snake, well - that's even worse! (See the story of the "fiery serpents" which bit the Israelites in the wilderness for a Biblical example) Most lizards don't do this, or turtles, or frogs or any number of other small animals. Humans, not being entirely ignorant concerning self-preservation, will usually kill a snake when they see it (many times by chopping it's head off or stomping on it), on the off-chance that the snake is dangerous; people still do this when they find a snake in their back yard. The author of the story in Genesis in which the serpent plays a prominent role was well aware of the "enmity" which humans and snakes have for each other.
The "Enmity" between Snakes and Humans
So why do snakes bite people on their "heel", and why do humans retaliate by "bruising their head"? Why is there this "enmity"? The author of the Genesis 2-3 account gives us an entertaining Etymological Story that explains why this is so. Within this same story are other etymological tales and explanations: why humans are mortal, why childbirth is painful, why men tend to make the decisions in a marriage, why the snake has no legs, why humans have to work for a living, why we wear clothing, etc.
Genesis 1-11 is considered "The Primeval History" by many scholars, and it is chock-full of etymological tales - they are not just limited to the Garden of Eden story. Other etymological tales center around names - which are very important to many Biblical authors: see the origin of the Ammonites and the Moabites (the story of Lot's daughters in Genesis). It's highly unlilkely that Ammon and Moab were named in such derogatory terms, but the biblical author (or perhaps an oral tradition) thought it would be hilarious to attribute such name-meanings to their enemies (enemies at the time that Genesis was actually written down).
The "detection" of a prophecy in these words has long been realized to be a false one, for one important fact is misconstrued: the serpent was NOT Satan. Though this subject is an involved one, the idea of a being called Satan as a malevolent evil opposing force to God was not in existence at the time of the writing of Genesis 2-3. This would occur later.
This association with Satan also destroys the Justice involved in cursing the serpent with having no legs, etc. Why would the hapless snake be cursed (and it's descendants) for something a Satan did? No - the text clearly says that the serpent (not a possessed serpent) was the most "subtle" or "shrewd" animal created by God. Later tradition would accuse this serpent of being the Devil, but this is a false ascription. Therefore, the so-called "prophecy" really doesn't have any value. Besides that, it was not common for the Old Testament writers to embed hidden prophecies in their works, for prophecies were almost always clearly labeled as such, and pronounced by Prophets. See Spinoza for more details.
I disagree, many scriptures in the OT that do not indicate a prophesy yet are spoken of being fulfilled as prophesy by NT writers.
Some examples:
the story of the virgin birth Matthew attributes to the birth of Christ as being the fulfillment.
Is. Chapter 53 is attributed as being fulfilled in Christ
Ps.78:2 Matthew says is fulfilled in Christ
These are just a few example of where no prophesy is being stated in the OT yet the NT writers tell us they were indeed a prophesy that found their fulfillment in Jesus Christ.
Heck just read the Psalms. Many of them are prophetic in nature and point to Christ.
So you might consider what I wrote concerning the two creation accounts as a hypothesis but at least my hypothesis is based after the same fashion as the NT writers. Whereas the Documentary Hypothesis has no scriptural base for its foundation.
What do snakes and satan and the names of Ammon and Moab have to do with the two creation accounts? Interesting as though they my be they have nothing to do with the bara of MAN; however they do have a place in the yatsar of man.
Quote:
Very good observations concering the words used for "creating" and "shaping/forming". Once again, we can approach this from our multiple author theory.
Cosmic View versus Earthly View
The 1st Creative Account differs from the 2nd Creative Account in various ways. One of the biggest differences is the perspective from which it is told. The 1st Creative Acount takes a cosmic view - God creates light, separates it from pre-existing darkness, and brings order to pre-existing Chaos (symbolic of Evil). He creates the sun, the moon and the stars. He causes the dry land to appear amidst the seas, creates the sky to separate the waters. All very cosmic stuff.
He does this in a very dis-embodied fashion. The Hebrew word bara is used only in relation to God's actions - never of humans. In addition to this, God shows his cosmic power by just speaking - "Let there be light" - "and it was so". The whole series of events covers all of creation, down to mankind and finally culminates in the true point of the P Writer's story: the Sabbath. As a Priest, this writer was interested in demythologyzing certain aspects of previous Creation stories (Yahweh's fight with the Sea Monsters - see the Psalms, as well as other places), and of showing the importance of festivals and holidays (governed by the sun and the moon, etc) - and especially of the Sabbath. He also had an image of God as being so cosmic and powerful, removed from mundane earthly things, that the Creation is very universally motivated. God doesn't get his hands dirty.
The 2nd Creative Account differs from the 1st in being more folk-loristic, using an entirely different name for God (Yahweh God, or Yahweh of the gods) and from being told from a more "earthly" perspective: it does not tell of the creation of the light, the sky, and the sun and the moon but briefly- but starts on the earth with mundane, non-cosmic things. In the 1st CA - man is just one more item in the long list of items God creates. In the 2nd CA, man could be said to be the focal point of the story.
At the time of YHWH, God's making of earth and heaven,
no bush of the field was yet on earth,
no plant of the field had yet sprung up,
for YHWH, God, had not made it rain upon earth,
and there was no human/adam to till the soil/adamah -
but a surge would well up from the ground and water all the face of the soil;
and YHWH, God, formed the human, of dust from the soil,
he blew into his nostrils the breath of life
and the human became a living being.
(Genesis 2:4b-7, SB)
We are reminded that the 1st CA (Creative Account, from now on) does not mention the material from which humans were made - they were just created using the awesome power of God. In this very earthly account (notice that the cosmic things - stars, sun, moon, etc. - have already been created), the focus is squarely on earth and God - now Yahweh God - is given very human, anthropomorphic qualities. Here is where your verb usage comes into play. yatsar is a verb that is closer to meaning with "fashion" or "form" - as a potter would "form" something out of clay. It does not have the same connotation as the 1st CA's verb of "create". Even later, when Yahweh God makes a woman out of the man's rib, the very used is close to the meaning of "build" - as in someone "building" something out of pre-existing materials, like a laborer.
In this 2nd CA, Yahweh God walks around, he talks with his creatures, he forms the man out of mud and clay, he actually breathes life essence into the creature (like CPR almost), he "constrcuts" the woman, he looks for them when they have transgressed, he makes them clothing - he is very anthropomorphized, and the action takes place mostly on the earth. This is indicative of an early type of story-telling, before the pious P Writer (of the 1st CA, for example) became uncomfortable with the idea that God could be spoken of in such human terms. This is why Genesis 2-3 appears to come from an earlier strand of tradition than Genesis 1. The same type of thinking can be seen if one follows the P (Priestly Writer) and J (the Yahwist Writer) strands through the Torah, or Pentateuch.
The Jewish Study Bible has this to say concerning the differences:
Whereas 1:1-2:3 presented a majestic God-centered scenario of creation, 2:4-25 presents a very different but equally profound story of origins. This second account of creation is centered more on human beings and familiar human experiences, and even its deity is conceived in more anthropomorphic terms. Source critics attribute the two accounts to different documents (P and J, respectively) later combined into the Torah we have now. The classical Jewish tradition tends to harmonize the discrepancies by intertwining the stories, using the details of one to fill in the details of the other. Even on the source-critical reading, however, the contrast and interaction of the two creation accounts offer a richer understanding of the relationship of God to humankind than we would have if the accounts were read in isolation from each other.
(The Jewish Study Bible, p. 15, n. on Genesis 2.4-25, Oxford, 2004)
The above is very important, I feel. The "intertwining" is what creates contradictions - it is better to read them as two separate accounts, in my opinion.
So your pointing out of the different verbs have a definate importance, though I wouldn't attribute them to some sort of cosmic prophecy.
While that is an interesting read but it still comes down to the Documentary Hypothesis trying to reconcile the two CA. They CANNOT be reconciled because they indeed speak of two CA. The one that will be (future) and the one we are experiencing right now.
It is the effort to try and reconcile the two CA that brings in all the confusion and the Documentary Hypothesis just brings more confusion to the issue.
However if one can but see that they are indeed two separate CA, the one that we live in right now and the one that WILL BE when we bare the image of the Heavenly the confusion disappears.
Quote:
"In the image of God" in Genesis 2-3?
I would suggest that in the Genesis 2-3 section - not once is it inferred, suggested or made explicit that mankind was created in the image of God. Feel free to doublecheck. Assuming that the J writer thought so, is to ignore the consensus that this was written earlier than the P Writer. The P Writer probably chose to have them made in the image of God to counter the then-current Near Eastern notion that the gods had made humans to be slaves to them, and they in now way resembled the gods in any shape or manner. The great innovation of the 1st CA is that humans were NOT created to be slaves for the gods, but were created to just be humans and act like humans - reproducing and multiplying.
I do not need to recheck brother I fully agree Gen.2-3 section makes no inference or suggests that man was created in the image of God.
Why?
Because man spoken of here is NOT the image and likeness of God, we right now bare the image of the earth earthy, but we SHALL bare the image of the heavenly. The very image and likeness of God prophesied in Gen.1:26-27.
Quote:
Nepesh (nep̄eÅ¡), Soul, Life
The spiritual side of mankind is not mentioned in either of these stories, either - for such an idea was not held by the ancient Israelites writing these stories. God breathed into them nepesh - which is the life-force that keeps things alive. The word was also used to represent "life" and it is written in the Bible that when a person dies, their nephesh dies as well. This was a natural observation of the ancients, since when someone stopped breathing - they died. The next logical step from there was to attribute this "breath" to God, which was then called nepesh. With later Greek ideas of the soul, this nepesh was turned into some sort of spiritual force that existed beyond man's life-time - this is not a Biblical idea.
(As a head's up - the pronounciation is nefesh; some transliterate it as nephesh. The "f" sound is simply the soft prounciation of the letter "p").
See this example, concerning Jospeh and his brothers:
"So-now, come, let us kill him and cast him into one of these pits and say: an ill-tempered beast has devoured him!
Then we will see what becomes of his dreams!"
When Re'uven [Reuben] heard it he tried to rescue him from their hand, he said:
"Let us not take his life/nepesh!"
(Genesis 37:20-21, SB)
The word for "life" here is "nepesh" and it obviously is not referring to some sort of spiritual soul. It is retaining it's normal meaning. The nepesh can also die:
You have profaned My name among My people in return for handfuls of barley and morsels of bread;
you have announced the death of persons who will not die and the survival of persons who will not live - lying to My people, who listen to your lies.
(Ezekiel 13:19, NJPS)
Consider, all lives are Mine;
the life of the parent and the life of the child are both Mine.
The person who sins, only he shall die.
(Ezekiel 18:4, NJPS)
Some very clear references to the concept of nepesh, above. The book of Jonah gives another helpful reference:
Then they cried out to [Yahweh]:
"Oh, please, Yahweh, do not let us perish on account of this man's life.
Do not hold us guilty of killing an innocent person!
For You, O Yahweh, by Your will, have brought this about."
(Jonah 1:14, NJPS)
"Life" is the usual translation of "nepesh", though most Bibles deceptively use the term "soul". From the Anchor Bible's translation of a verse from the book of Job...
My soul within me is emptied;
Days of affliction seize me.
(Job 30:16, AB)
...we get a strange meaning, if one were to insist that "soul" means a spiritual thing. The note to this verse gives us invaluable information concerning the subject: 16a: soul
The term (nep̄eÅ¡) has a wide range of meaning, including breath, life, appetite, emotion, and the whole person. The idea of the soul as a separate entity from the body is unbiblical. One pours out the "soul," I Samuel 1:15; Psalm 42:5, as one's heart (mind) is poured out, Lamentations 2:19, in sorrowful supplication before God. The meaning here [Job 30:16a] is apparantly that the emotional strain caused by suffering has drained Job of all zest for life.
(Anchor Bible: Job, Marvin Pope, p. 222, n. on XXX:16a, Doubleday, 1965, rev. 1973)
So much for nepesh.
I agree nephesh is in reference to life and it is used over 700 times in the OT and makes no distinction between the life of the beasts of the field and that of the life of man.
However no breath of life is spoken of being breathed into any beast of the field, only upon man is the breath of life given.
The reason being is because ALL nephesh (this includes man) already have a biological life but only to man is given the LIFE of God or the breath of Gods life.
This can be seen in the NT. Although man is a living being or a biological being, man without the LIFE of Christ in them are considered dead and it is not until Christ breathed upon them that they received the Holy Ghost.
Quote:
The Breath of Life
In the 2nd CA, man has a lowly origin - made out of the dust (or "clods" according to E.A. Speiser) of the earth. The "breath of life" that God physically breathes into him to bring him to life is a breath that the human cannot exist without - he is dependent on God for his very life.
I won't say much on this, but let Bill T. Arnold speak for me:
Using familiar terminology from the artistic craft of the potter, Yahweh God formed (yāṣar, "shaped") the man, breathed life into his nostrils, and he became "a living being". Of course, this last phrase has been debated for centuries and has played an enormous role in theological and philosophical speculation. Regardless of one's convictions about the nature of human life, we must not require this verse to say more than it intends. The "living being" is not some disembodied component of the human being, distinct from his physical existence; a "soul" comprising one portion of a person's whole being. Rather the "living being" denotes the totality of the human. Beyond this specific terminology used in v. 7, the importance of the human is clarified by his role in the earth. Far from a divine afterthought, as he is in certain ancient Near Eastern cosmogonic myths, the human is part of the solution to earth's problems. The lack of someone to till the ground (v. 5) is supplied by the human who plays the central role in this passage (v. 15). Humankind is earth's keeper.
(Genesis - The New Cambridge Bible Commentary, pp. 58-59, Cambridge University Press, 2008)
The last sentence referring to humankind as the earth's keeper should segue into your next suggestion.
I realise most consider this to be the way God created man. However as I pointed out man was already a biological being, a nephesh and had the life of a nephesh.
The breath of life from God wherein God yatsars man is the life God uses to mold the clay as the potter.
Yatsar is not the creation/bara of man, yatsar is the fashioning of man into what he will become. The image and likeness of God.
Quote:
I think reading more into the passage of "replenishing" than the obvious meaning is ill-advised. The earth is new, it needs to be filled (the 1st command to humanity in the P Account) - but the verb for "replenish" does not have the connotations you think they do. It does not imply a prophecy to most people, and it goes against the plain reading of the text.
Tis the same word used of Noah and although means fill obviously it can also mean to refill.
Quote:
Hopefully you can see that I don't feel there are any contradictions in the two accounts (ONLY if you try to smush the two together into a single story do contradictions arise).
Well I do not smash the two together my understanding makes a distinct difference between the two. However what you have put forth does smash them together.
Example: you indicate Gods creation of man in Gen2 is the same as the creation of man in Gen1. All you are doing is saying God yatsared/formed clay into a bara/creation of the man seen in Gen.1
Quote:
As for your last paragraph, hopefully I have shown that the idea of a spiritual side of mankind - as opposed to the earthly side - is not an idea to be found in the text of Genesis. If still unsure of this, see earlier in this post.
Obviously I disagree with what you have shown whopper and hopefully I explained myself well enough that you can understand why I disagree.
Quote:
Please consider my reply carefully. Perhaps then you will see my reluctance to ascribe anything extra to the text (which is what the prophecy-motive would be doing). Hopefully, you have followed the link provided by Grandpa and given it some thought.
I have read the link and considered your reply carefully and my conclusions still differ.
Tell me what you think of what Paul said about the first man being of the earth earthy and we right now bare that image but that we SHALL bare the image of the heavenly.
Then reconcile that with Gen.1 and Gen.2 concerning the creation of man.
You have said you do not see a prophesy but you have not explained what you see Paul speaking of.
Matt 2:19-20 "When Herod died, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, ‘Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the child’s life are dead.’
Contradicted by:
Luke 2:39 "When they had finished everything required by the law of the Lord [Note: This would be fifty days after the birth of a male child], they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth"
There's no Egypt trip in Luke. Yet another contradiction.
Matt 2:19-20 "When Herod died, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, ‘Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the child’s life are dead.’
Contradicted by:
Luke 2:39 "When they had finished everything required by the law of the Lord [Note: This would be fifty days after the birth of a male child], they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth"
There's no Egypt trip in Luke. Yet another contradiction.
Not really a contradiction.
In Matthew's account Jesus is already a little boy and they are living in a house.
Mat 2:11 And, coming into the house, they perceived the little Boy with Mary, His mother,
and, falling, they worship Him. And opening their treasures, they bring Him approach presents,
gold and frankincense and myrrh.
In Luke's account it is speaking of him being born in a stable as a baby.
Luk 2:7 And she brought forth her Son, the firstborn, and swaddles Him, and cradles Him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the caravansary."
In Matthew's account the wise men come (when Christ was around 2 years old.
In Luke's account the shepherds visit Him right when He is born.
Let's look at the very first supposed contradiction your link brings up:
Here is what John Gill's Exposition on the Entire Bible says about this:
2Sa 23:8 These [are] the names of the mighty ones whom David has:sitting in the seat [is] the Tachmonite, head of the captains--he [is] Adino, who hardened himself against eight hundred--wounded at one time.
1Ch 11:11 And this [is] an account of the mighty ones whom David has:Jashobeam son of a Hachmonite [is] head of the thirty; he is lifting up his spear against three hundred--wounded, at one time.
Gill quotes the A.V. of 2Sam.23:8 (in bold):
"he lifted up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time; which, though a very extraordinary exploit, yet not more strange, or so strange as that of Shamgar's slaying six hundred men with an ox goad, Jdg_3:31, or as that of Samson's killing a thousand men with the jawbone of an ass, Jdg_15:15, in 1Ch_11:11, the number is only three hundred, which some attempt to reconcile by observing, that not the same person is meant in both places; here he is called Joshebbashebeth, there Jashobeam; here the Tachmonite, there the son of an Hachmonite; nor is he there called Adino the Eznite; but yet it seems plain that in both places the chief of the three worthies of David is meant, and so the same man: others observe, that he engaged with eight hundred, and slew three hundred of them, when the rest fled, and were pursued and killed by his men; and he routing them, and being the occasion of their being slain, the slaying of them all is ascribed to him; or he first slew three hundred, and five hundred more coming upon him, he slew them also: but what Kimchi offers seems to be best, that there were two battles, in which this officer was engaged; at one of them he slew eight hundred, and at the other three hundred; for so what is omitted in the books of Samuel, and of the Kings, is frequently supplied in the books of Chronicles, as what one evangelist in the New Testament omits, another records. The above learned writer (r) conjectures, that ש being the first letter of the words for three and eight, and the numeral letter being here reduced to its word at length, through a mistake in the copier, was written שמנה, "eight", instead of שלש, "three": the Septuagint version is,"he drew out his spear against eight hundred soldiers at once,''and says nothing of slaying them; and seems to be the true sense of the word, as the same learned writer (s) has abundantly shown."
There are thousands and thousands of Protestant churches whereas there is only one Catholic Church that remains intact since Jesus created his church.
Honestly, some new bible fundamentalists are behaving in a very narrow manner. This was common in medieval times and in fact led to the reformation. One day someone will inevitable try to reform the bible fundamentalists. Every day a new Protestant church opens doors claiming to have the answer.
In the meantime the most elite Protestant scholars and ministers are converting back to Catholicism.
Actually, this is going beyond what my Original Post is about but there are actually two churches: The Circumcision Jewish ecclesia (church) and the Uncircumcision ecclesia (church) of the nations whose apostle is the apostle Paul. See Galatians 2 if you don't believe me. The Catholic church supposedly goes back to Peter. We of the nations must go back to Paul. Peter made a deal with Paul in Galatians 2 that he (Peter) would be for the Circumcision yet Paul for the nations. And Peter agreed in Acts that he would no longer be harassing those of the nations (Acts 15:19). So the Catholic church needs to leave us the 'h' alone.
Now then, Genesis is both an historical account and it has some allegorical messages within it. For instance, Paul used the Genesis account to reveal this to us:
2Co 4:6 for the God Who says that, out of darkness light shall be shining, is He Who shines in our hearts, with a view to the illumination of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."
There really was a man named Adam and a woman named Eve who started the human lineage on earth. Not one writer in the NT nor OT ever says Adam was just make believe to drive home a lesson. In fact, they all accept him as being a real person.
The lineage of Jesus is really important in proving His messiaship. If it wasn't they would not have used it. It is not just a made-up story to give goose bumps. Those people really existed.
You atheists and agnosticts and unbelievers really need to PROVE with scientific proof (since you don't go by any other proof) that every person in Jesus' genealogy did not exist. You can't just say it was just a made-up story.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
