You are wasting your time arguing about how many translations translated “created” vs “had created”. Biblical Hebrew uses both interchangeably - context alone determines which is meant. So the fact that any number of translations chose one way means nothing at all.
The vegetation issue is a more legitimate one. Jewish tradition has been that they were created on the third day but sprouted from the ground after the creation of Man. In general, the first days were for the creation of the elemental universe, and the sixth day was when it was finished up and set in motion as a going concern.
For the most part, the “second creation story” is merely an expanded treatment of one part of the “first creation story”. Nothing in this at all.
Bottom line is that if you want to find ways to reconcile the stories it is not hard at all. And if you want to find ways to ridicule them it is also not hard. Same as with any other subject - you can get together a group of people who share your viewpoint and sit around laughing at the “foolishness” of the people who don’t. Enjoy.
The reason for that is because according to Deuteronomy, once a permanent scrificial site is designated by G-d, sacrifices cannot be offered elsewhere - better not to offer them at all than to offer them elsewhere.
But those commentaries and interpretations all have basis in the text. It would be quite incorrect to say that Talmud-following Jews do not take the OT literally. A better term would be that we do not take it “at face value.” Verses need to be interpreted in the context of the entire Bible. That’s how the interpretations arise and the apparent contradictions are resolved.
With regard to the two different lines about the creation of the woman, whether it was at the same moment as the man or later, isn’t that the source for the Hebrew tradition of Lilith?
I am not sure how one can differentiate “not taking it literally” with “not taking it at face value” - but I let it pass, because the outcome is the same … the OT is interpreted within the framework of a tradition that resolves apparent contradictions and absurdities.
Once that is done, it is much less likely that Talmudic Jews will be trapped into finding contradictions between scientific knowledge and a “literal” interpretation of the OT - the two can be interpreted together so that any apparent contradictions can be resolved.
As for the “sacrifices” bit - it simply demonstrates that even Biblical commandments must evolve to suit circumstances. When Deuteronomy and Leviticus were (supposedly) written, there was no Temple - then there was - and now, there isn’t.
This demonstrates the necessity of reading the OT with a mind open to interpretation and revision, since clearly certain of God’s commandments are now superceded by events - particularly, those involving animal sacrifice.
In addition, the culture of the times must be understood in order to understand the true meaning of Bible stories. Take for example the “sin” of Onan. For years, it was taught as an example of God’s hatred of mastrubation - when in fact it means no such thing (even on its face, it was not mastrubation by “coitus interuptus” which was the sin in question). If you read the whole story, the reason Onan “spilled his seed upon the ground” was because otherwise, he would be forced to share his inheritance with the resulting kid - so God blasted him, essentially, for selfishness.
I always value your posts on these boards Polycarp, and I want to make sure that the tone of this post does not come across overly confrontational or anything. So, I have a question about your reading of the above quoted portions.
First, how is it “relatively clear” that the quoted portion about “plant life, both wild and cultivated” is created after creation? My reading of that quoted portion is that when God created the earth and the heavens, there was no plant life on earth. God created Adam from the dust. I don’t see anything in that quoted portion that gives any indication to time, much less that plant life came afterward. In the second quoted paragraph above, it says that God planted a garden and then put Adam in the garden and caused the plants that God had planted to begin to spring up and, presumably, provide fruit, etc. Again, it doesn’t seem even remotely “clear” that there’s anything in what you quoted that says the plants were created after Adam.
Anyway, just wondered what I was missing in your reading of those quoted portions because somehow I didn’t see the clarity that you did in their text.
It seems to me, without having read previous discussions here of this subject, that the “first” creation account (Genesis 1) provides an account of the order in which creation took place, and provides an accounting of “days”. The “second” creation account, as far as I can recall, does not include any accounting of “days” at all. Rather, the “second” creation account notes that there was nothing here before God began, that God created man, that God put man in the garden to work it, that God searched for a suitable “helper” for man, that God brought all the animals before man, but was unable to find a suitable “helper” among them, and therefore God created woman. I guess I don’t see much of anything in Genesis 2 that references time periods or days at all.
Where does Genesis 2.4-2.7 indicate that everything was done in one day? Where does it indicate that God created the animals because Adam was alone (rather than bringing the animals to Adam in search of a “helper”, not finding one, and then creating woman)? (in reference to Malthus’ post early in this thread)
I don’t consider myself a strict literalist or a true “fundie” as those terms seem to be used on these boards, but all I see in the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 accounts are things that, depending on how you read them, can be read as contradictory or can be read as consistent. I don’t see either reading as strictly wrong from a “reading” standpoint.
My favorite part of the creation stories in Genesis is where God seems to think bestiality might be worth a shot. He decides none of the animals he creates are suitable partners for Adam, however, so he is forced to give woman a try. This is the word of an omnipotent God?
Alas poor women, you were God’s last resort. Not to worry though, before the tale is over woman will unleash evil upon the world.
This whole debate underscores a point I have tried to make before. How amazingly little we expect from the word of God. Think about it, this is an omnipotent, infallible being and the best he could give us is a deeply confusing book written in an obscure language, unreadable to most people. Translations are varied and controversial.
If this omnipotent God had gone to the trouble to give us his word, why did he not give it to us in a magical language, impervious to transcription errors, legible to everyone including the illiterate and the blind. Why did he not make his word perfectly clear so that all people would understand who God is, what the meaning of life is and what expected of them. Why not just tell us what the nature of universe is? Why no e=mc2 in the Bible? You mean the omnipotent God didn’t know that?
Instead we get silly, contradictory stories that fly in the face of everything that humans can learn from the scientific method.
I will answer this bit, seeing as it is a reference to my post.
If the “second Genesis” creation story is to be read as consistant with the “first Genesis” story, all of the action - from creation of man in 2.7 through to the creation of woman in 2.22 - must logically have happened in one Biblical day of creation - the 6th. Why? Because we know from 1.26 - 1.31 that man and woman were made on the 6th day. Follow?
Now, the creation of animals takes place during that day - that is, after man was created in 2.7, and before woman was created in 2.22. Animals were created in 2.18-19.
So, according to Genesis 2, animals were created on Biblical day 6, inbetween the creation of man and women.
But hold on! According to Genesis 1.20-1.23, some animals - notably birds and sea creatures - were made on Biblical day 5!
Hold on - Genesis 2.20 specifically mentions birds as well, being created inbetween the creation of man and woman … how can that be, when birds (according to Genesis 1) were made before either …?
Genesis 2 does not have to mention days specifically. The sequence of events is contradictory. And that is evident on its face … unless you fiddle with the translations.
Well aware of that. The actual verses say (I’m paraphrasing) “When I bring you into the promised land, do not do as you do now, sacrificing anywhere you please. I have not yet brought you to your inheritance and resting place. Rather, once that happens, you should bring all your sacrifices to the place that G-d will designate.”
So the modern lack of sacrifices is hardly an extra-textual circumstance-based re-interpretation, it’s adherence to the actual text, which explicitly provides instruction for pre, during and post-Temple periods.
Ah, but if you finely parse the choice of words, as the Talmudic Rabbis do, you do come to the conclusion that while Onan is guilty of a number of things, wanton destruction of semen is indeed his primary sin. You see, the Hebrew word used when it mentions his “spilling the seed” is “Shikhes” - which does not actually mean “spill” (there are other Hebrew words that denote spilling or pouring with purpose), but “destroy”. From this, the Rabbis derive that willful destruction of semen - a category of activity that includes male masturbation - is sinful.
And that is what I mean - a cursory reading might lead one to think that it’s merely the selfishness. An interpretation of the precise text that follows Rabbinic tradition - certainly something that can be described as “literal” is what adds the masturbation thing.
I believe it - but even in your paraphrase, there is no mention of “when there is no Temple, stop sacrificing!”.
That may indeed be (a) logical inference, but it is not an actual commandment. It would be equally ‘logical’ to go back to sacrificing wherever, seeing as God has now “un-designated” the Temple by allowing its destruction.
Then clearly different Rabbis have different interpretations, because I learned my version from - a Rabbi!
Also, some experimentation on my part has conclusively demonstrated that God does not zap people for “wasting semen”. (God doesn’t zap people for being selfish either I suppose - but I have never been selfish, so I wouldn’t know … he he).
The point is, through “careful interpretation” you can get the Bible to mean whatever you want it to mean, and call your particular meaning “literal”.
Rabbis are well known to debate these issues and others, which is I think a good and healthy thing. Much better than attempting to apply this stuff literally.
“If the place which the Lord thy God hath chosen to put his name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock …”
Compare to Deut. 12.11.
So, if you are too far away, you can sacrifice in other places … why don’t people do it?
Anyway, it is evidently the place which is important, not the Temple - there is nothing stopping people today from sacrificing there (other than the existance of the Dome of the Rock on the same site!). So why not resume sacrifices now?
I follow that Genesis 1 says men and women were made on the 6th day. What I don’t follow is why you think everything in Genesis 2 had to have happened in one day. My point is that in Genesis 1 we have specific demarcations of days. In Genesis 2 what we have is more detail about the creation of woman, the garden, etc. But there’s nothing anywhere in there to indicate to me that anything in Genesis 2 is to be considered to have been done in one day. Rather, I read Genesis 2 to be repeating that, during the creation talked about in Genesis 1, all these “things” were created; but nothing in Genesis 2 indicates that it happened in any different order, sequence, or time period than Genesis 1.
I still don’t see that anywhere in Genesis 2. In Genesis 2:18-19 we have God deciding that Adam needs a “helper”. In Genesis 2:19 it says that God “had created” the animals and he brings them before Adam to be named, etc. In Genesis 20 we see that, among those animals (which had previously been created, in my interpretation as set forth in Genesis 1), there was no suitable “helper” so God decides to create Eve. I don’t see anything in Genesis 2:18-20 that indicates animals being created after Adam.
No, as noted just above, Genesis 2:20 does not say anything about birds being created after Adam. It certainly doesn’t specifically say that. It says that the birds were brought before Adam to be named, but it says in Genesis 2:19 that God “had created” them before.
As noted, I don’t see that the sequence of events is contradictory and I don’t think you have to really fiddle with the translations. I think it is as reasonable an interpretation to read the above sections as indicating that the details of when things were created is set forth in Genesis 1, while more details about God’s reasons, etc. are set forth in Genesis 2.
As I noted above, I think either interpretation is just as reasonable and that it just depends on your own faith/belief system which interpretation and reading you will be inclined to believe.
(Isn’t it amazing that this debate has gotten into its second page without any serious downward spiral in civility as seems to happen so often in these creation/evolution/big bang/ etc. debates, or at least the ones I have seen?)
No, verse 20 comes before 21 and clearly sets the context of 21. These verses are dealing with the laws of ritual slaughter for non-consecrated, good-ol’ fashion, everyday meat.
There are several reasons. In a nutshell (I don’t want to get bogged down into long technical discussions) there are two main reasons (aside from the presence of the mosque):
(1) Everyone currently alive today is tamei (ritually unclean, for lack of a better term). A person who is tamei is not allowed on the Temple grounds. Thus, even if the mosque were not there, observant Jews would not be walking on the site.
(2) The essential structure is not the Temple per se, but the Altar. (In fact, when the Second Temple was built, sacrifices resumed even before the building went up.) The Altar must be located in precisely the same place that it was located before. This location is lost to us today. As such, sacrifices cannot resume because even if (a) the mosque were not on the Temple Mount and (b) the issue of tumah were solved, we still have the issue of the precise location of the Altar.
Verse 21 does not say “sacrifice”, it says “kill” or “slaughter”. It means to slaughter as ordinary meat, not as a sacrifice. In case the language (which does not say “sacrifice” or “offer”) is too vague, the following verse ought clinch it for you (parenthetical comments mine): “Eat them as you would gazelle or deer (both animals that are not valid as sacrifices). Both the ceremonially unclean and the clean may eat. (a sacrifice could only be eaten by those who are ceremonially clean)”
First of all, the existence of the Dome of the Rock does pose a problem: destroying it to make a Jewish Temple would surely cause much bloodshed, and Temple building and sacrificial service are not commandments that one is supposed to risk human lives for! In addition, there is an issue of ritual purity which might be too complex to get into now.
There are Jewish organizations that have taken initiative to prepare peripheral items for the eventual resumption of Temple-based sacrificial service at such time that G-d decides to bring it about. But the practical difficulties involved in conducting Jewish services on the Temple’s original site at this moment are enough, according to Jewish religious law, to prevent such resumption.
(God doesn’t zap people for being selfish either I suppose - but I have never been selfish, so I wouldn’t know … he he).