Genesis Challenge 1 - Was it good?
-
I have a question to ask all Christians .. why didn't God declare creation good on the second day?
You can see this as a challenge. Challenge the Christian exegestical and hermeneutical tradition.
The relevant verses in Genesis 1 are reproduced below. All verses are from NIV. -
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day. -
-edit-
sorry, i thought u forgot your verses -
ben .. what does your Catholic Oral Tradition have to say about this?Originally posted by ben1xy:-edit-
sorry, i thought u forgot your verses
-
as u know we can read genesis allegorically. keeping that in view, i'll move on. i attended a class on this actuallyOriginally posted by Icemoon:ben .. what does your Catholic Oral Tradition have to say about this?
anyway, the explanation is this:
the second day was incomplete. that is why there is no mention of good. I think tradition stipulates that hell, hades or the jewish term Gehenna was created but not complete. However, by the third day, it was completed. And interestingly, on the third day, there was 2 mentions of it was good. (symbolising that what was incomplete on the 2nd day was completed on the third day?) Extrapolating, the alleviation of the bad things of hell could not affect earth? or something around that lines.
that's what i think an can remember -
This is the Jewish midrashic tradition. Did you ask for the source of what you were taught?Originally posted by ben1xy:anyway, the explanation is this:
the second day was incomplete. that is why there is no mention of good. I think tradition stipulates that hell, hades or the jewish term Gehenna was created but not complete. However, by the third day, it was completed. And interestingly, on the third day, there was 2 mentions of it was good. (symbolising that what was incomplete on the 2nd day was completed on the third day?) Extrapolating, the alleviation of the bad things of hell could not affect earth? or something around that lines.'How is it,' asked an inquisitive matron of Rabbi José, 'that your Scriptures crown every day of creation with the words: "And God saw that it was good," but the second day is deprived of this phrase?' The Rabbi sought to satisfy her by pointing out that at the end of the creation it is said: 'And God saw all that He had made, and it was exceedingly good,' so that the second day shares in this commendation. 'But,' insisted the matron, 'there is still an unequal division, since every day has an additional sixth part of the praise, whilst the second day has only the sixth part without the whole one, which the others have. for themselves.' The sage then mentioned the opinion of Rabbi Samuel, that the reason for the omission is to be found in the fact that the work begun on the second day was not finished before the following (the third) day; hence we find the expression 'it was good' twice on that day.--Gen. Rabba 4.
The part about hell came from Jewish Tradition also, but I can't find it in the source, so no quotes on this.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/tmm/tmm07.htm
Looks like the Catholic Church really has the Tradition passed down from Sinai!
-
how do we interpret that sola scriptura then?Originally posted by ben1xy:as u know we can read genesis allegorically. keeping that in view, i'll move on. i attended a class on this actually -
must ask out Protestant brethren thatOriginally posted by Icemoon:how do we interpret that sola scriptura then? -
I don't think they can.Originally posted by ben1xy:must ask out Protestant brethren that 
-
I'm so confused with so many threads running around with the same topic that I've lost all focus...
Anyway, just to hijack this thread a little. Wasn't the sequence of creation all wrong? Light was created before the stars and sun and moon...
Sorry Icemoon, can't find the other thread where I posted the same question. -
could it be your interpretation is wrong?Originally posted by kaister:I'm so confused with so many threads running around with the same topic that I've lost all focus...
Anyway, just to hijack this thread a little. Wasn't the sequence of creation all wrong? Light was created before the stars and sun and moon...
Sorry Icemoon, can't find the other thread where I posted the same question.
Even the flintstones wouldn't make such a blunder for their only natural light came from the sun, moon and stars.
I'm using a reductio kind of technique here. -
Maybe Moses got it wrong? Who knows what they were thinking?Originally posted by Icemoon:could it be your interpretation is wrong?
Even the flintstones wouldn't make such a blunder for their only natural light came from the sun, moon and stars.
I'm using a reductio kind of technique here. -
I assume Moses was correct.Originally posted by kaister:Maybe Moses got it wrong? Who knows what they were thinking?
Then I ask myself - what's the best interpretation offered by the sages?
After that I evaluate - does it make sense? Is there wisdom in it? Does Scripture support it? -
you might also wish to study how many full stops, coma and exclamation marks found in the various translations.
-
I am not interested in translations.Originally posted by NT2:you might also wish to study how many full stops, coma and exclamation marks found in the various translations.
I'm only interested in what God has to tell us. In this case .. what God DID NOT tell us. -
I think given the amount of glaring mistakes in the bible, punctuations left out by Icemoon shouldn't be an important issue, should it?Originally posted by NT2:you might also wish to study how many full stops, coma and exclamation marks found in the various translations.
So instead of being so nitty-picky, why don't you offer us some insights? -
Care to share with us some of the mistakes?Originally posted by kaister:I think given the amount of glaring mistakes in the bible, punctuations left out by Icemoon shouldn't be an important issue, should it?
So instead of being so nitty-picky, why don't you offer us some insights? -
yar hor .. how dare he say got mistake.Originally posted by Skibi:Care to share with us some of the mistakes?
-
Oh my... I don't want to get into another round of debate regarding the Genesis again. Let me first define mistakes as things that either never happened or was wrongly written.Originally posted by Skibi:Care to share with us some of the mistakes?
1. Just take a look at the sequence of creation. Light before creation of stars.
2. A 30 cubic (137m) ark that carries a pair of all the animals in the world + 49 days of food - physical impossibility.
3. Stoning your children to death when they are disobedient - what the hell?
4. The tower of Babel - the fact we've reached the moon shows that either God overreacted to a miserable tower or that story is false.
All these are mythical tales or false morals that should have never be in the holy book in the first place.
I can go on and on... but I guess I'll stop here.
Edit: Oops. Number 3 is not in Genesis. -
To be fair, bible never say what is that light.Originally posted by kaister:1. Just take a look at the sequence of creation. Light before creation of stars.
When bible never say much .. we have to use the Oral Tradition as a guide. -
How about the rest? I remember breytonhartge mentioning something about the Babylonian towers and how they also had a tale about their God punishing them for building a tower.Originally posted by Icemoon:To be fair, bible never say what is that light.
When bible never say much .. we have to use the Oral Tradition as a guide.
Could it be that the bible today had already incorporated things from other cultures and religions?