Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution

[Jeweler]

Okay then why would Jesus existing in the garden not be enough? Didn’t God originally plan on just having Adam in the garden?

[jimwalton]

No, God didn't plan on just having Adam in the garden. One of His blessings to humanity was that they be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth. God wanted more children (Rom. 8.16-18, 29-30; Jn. 1.14, 12; Heb. 2.10)! His love was complete and fulfilled in the Trinity, but He wanted more children to share His presence and His love with, not out of need but out of desire.

[Jeweler]

Then why didn’t he create Adam and Eve at the same time? He waited until Adam was unhappy and needed a wife instead of just creating her at the same time.

[jimwalton]

He did create them at the same time. Let me state this, however. I take Genesis 1-2 to be an account of how God ordered the world to function, not an account of its material manufacture. I believe this is the more literal approach to the text. If it were an account of manufacture, it would start with nothing but emptiness; if it were an account of ordering what was there, it would start with chaotic disorder, as it does (Gn. 1.2).

Look at Day 1, for instance. He is telling us a period of light functions to give us day, a period of darkness functions to give us night, the alternating sequence of day and night give us evening and morning, and therefore on Day 1 God is ordering the function of TIME. Day 3 shows us how the earth functions: to bring forth vegetation. Day 4 shows us how the heavenly bodies function: to give us calendar and seasons. Day 6 shows us how humans function: to fill the Earth and subdue it, to rule the Earth as God would.

Genesis 1.26 is the first mention of the "creation" of humanity (though I don't think these chapters are about material manufacture. Instead, v. 26 is showing us that both male and female are in the image of God, defined as ruling and subduing the Earth. It is a statement of their status, role, and function.

In Genesis 2, the text is showing us that male and female are both made of the same "stuff," they are kindred in their relationship to each other, and are co-equal in their status and role. For instance, "helpmeet" is a term used through the Old Testament of God in relationship to Israel. God certainly is not inferior, created after the fact, or of lower status. Chapter 2 is not a chronological account of material manufacture, but revealing to us the equal status and role that women have with men. "Bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh," and the two become one.

> He waited until Adam was unhappy

Man's "aloneness" means that the functionality of the ordered system is not yet complete; it is not yet functioning optimally as it was designed to do in an ordered system, working the way God intended.

Nor can we conclude that Adam is in need of a reproduction partner. That is not under discussion here, and he would not be looking among the animals to resolve that problem! Rather, God is stating that humanity's functionality requires ALL of humanity, not just males, and what is needed is someone who is Adam's ontological equal, viz. females. The text is showing her necessity and equality, not about her being manufactured later because Adam was unhappy and needed a wife for reproduction.

[Jeweler]

How could he make Eve from Adam’s rib if they were made at the same time?

[jimwalton]

Wow, you've barely had time to consider the full import of my last post. I'm wondering if you're giving serious consideration to this discussion. Are you just tossing out questions without truly thinking about the answers I'm posing?

> How could he make Eve from Adam’s rib if they were made at the same time?

"Rib" is an unfortunate translation. First of all, the "deep sleep" is the term for a visionary trance, not anesthesia in preparation for surgery. God is giving Adam and vision, not a ribectomy.

Nowhere else in the Bible is this term (tsela') used to refer to anything anatomical. Instead, it's a word translated "side" giving direction (north side, south side) or architectural structure (sides of the ark, sides of the temple). So what is happening here is that God is giving Adam a vision revealing something important about the nature and identity of the woman. When he wakes up, he immediately understands she is "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh," again showing us the text isn't about a single rib. And then it's explained by, "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." This is is true of all mankind and all womankind. The vision has shown the man that "woman" is essentially related to him. If this is the case, these verses need not be understood as recounting the material origins of the first woman. Communication through a vision underlines this. God is showing the man how he should think about the helper that he is about to provide and then brings this woman to him (just as the man had been taken and brought to the garden).

The earliest translation of tsela’ in Genesis as "rib" appears in the Septuagint of the mid-3rd c. BC. From the Septuagint, it entered Western culture via Jerome’s Latin translation (The Vulgate) and remains the traditional understanding of the word in standard translations of the Bible. By the time we finally get to the period of English translations, the interpretation "rib" has become entrenched. But it is wrong.

The emphasis here is not on their material manufacture, but instead is on the relatedness of male and female, establishing the unity of humanity.

[Jeweler]

So you’re saying that basically anyone reading an English translation of the Bible is misunderstanding most if not all of the original meaning?

[jimwalton]

On that one particular word, yes. The term generally means "side." As I mentioned, it is used directionally or architecturally. The phrase in the Septuagint is μίαν τῶν πλευρῶν αὐτοῦ. πλευρῶν means "side (of things and places, of a man or animal; a line that forms the side of a triangle or other two-dimensional figure, or a square that forms the side of a cube." Only rarely is it ever translated "rib." ([url]https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/πλευρά[/url]).

Jerome then translated it into Latin as "costis" (which can mean "side" or "rib").

Wycliffe (late 1300s) chose to translate it into English as "rib" instead of "side." So also did the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560) and the King James Version (1611). And so it came to us.

[Jeweler]

Honestly. It seems like regardless of how contradictory two verses are or how inaccurate a claim is compared to observable reality and known science, someone with a belief that the Bible has to be the truth can always find another interpretation. Even when a prophecy isn’t fulfilled when expected, there will be the claim that we misunderstood it and evidence for the real meaning will be found. I’m starting to suspect that the entire foundation of religion is replacing a logical framework with an emotional one where any unknown can be explained through imagination. It gives people confidence in claiming good things are because of their protector and bad things just require trusting in their protector to overcome. It forces people to accept that they are broken and need guidance from something greater. In reality they just end up being more confident in their ignorance. I would much rather someone who rationally accepted their mistakes and accepted reality for what it is than someone who accepts their sinful nature and relies on unseen forces to improve themselves without any measurable metrics to track their improvement.

[jimwalton]

> Honestly. It seems like regardless of how contradictory two verses are or how inaccurate a claim is compared to observable reality and known science,

Where in the world did this come from? We haven't been discussing contradictions. No information has been given yielding any apparent contradiction. What two verses are you talking about?? Where did this comment come from? And "how inaccurate a claim is compared to observable reality and known science"????? Whaaaat? What are you talking about? This is out of nowhere.

> someone with a belief that the Bible has to be the truth can always find another interpretation

Whaaat? This is out of left field. What in the world!

You seem to be implying that we have no right to recognize a mistake has been made and to correct it. Why not? Historians, scientists, economists, and educators do it all the time. Why can't Christians?

> Even when a prophecy isn’t fulfilled when expected, there will be the claim that we misunderstood it and evidence for the real meaning will be found.

Your question was "Why didn't God create himself as the first two humans?" What does this have to do with prophecy? If you want to talk about the nature of prophecy, we can do that, but it has no place in this discussion.

> I’m starting to suspect that the entire foundation of religion is replacing a logical framework with an emotional one where any unknown can be explained through imagination.

Then these thoughts come from your own bias (you believe what you want to believe regardless of the evidence) than from any facts or evidence.

> In reality they just end up being more confident in their ignorance.

Wow. We need to talk more. Unfortunately, what you are saying here seems all from bias and ignorance, to be frank.

> I would much rather someone who rationally accepted their mistakes

We do. For this conversation, we accept that a mistaken translation was made in 1370 that has carried through to modern times. It's time to fix it. We shouldn't be held to it by someone such as yourself. We look to the original language, understand what that means, what happened through history, and change the mistake that was made in translation. That's what responsible scholars do, so I would expect that of you, assuming the best.

> relies on unseen forces

We all rely on unseen forces. I presume you are relying on your thoughts right now. Thoughts are unseen forces. So are memories, intuitions, and gut feelings. For that matter, so is gravity, velocity, and centripetal forces.

> to improve themselves without any measurable metrics to track their improvement.

Christianity is not about improving oneself. It's about a relationship with God. We do get improved in the process, but that's not the point.

Wow, you really took a run right off the field and into the stands with this post, changing the entire conversation. So, what would you like to discuss instead of your question leading the post?