Hot answers tagged

3

I would point out that the Hebrew text lends itself to the translation "rib." The text in Genesis 2:21 literally reads, "And he [the Lord God] took one ['aḥat] from his side [miṭṭela'] and he closed the flesh after them [taḥtennah]." The "one" would suggest a part of the side, and the "after them" (with a feminine plural suffix) would suggest that the one ...


2

Backdrop to explain my answer The opening chapters of Genesis provides an interesting framework for understanding the rest of the Bible. That is, the creation narrative of chapters 1-2 includes, within its own framework, the introduction of creation, and a "new" creation. That sounds confusing so let me explain. In Genesis 1 we're given an account of the ...


2

Church Fathers who comment on Genesis 1:11-13 - Basil, Ephraim the Syrian, Gregory of Nyssa - maintain that the vegetation brought forth appeared whole and mature in one instant; it was not simply latent in seeds waiting to germinate. The translation of this passage chooses to render the underlying Hebrew word as "sprout", which implies that some kind of ...


1

The question is conflating what are, in the view of nearly all critical scholars, two separate and independent accounts of creation. John J. Collins (The Bible After Babel, page 86) says a well-founded consensus of scholarship distinguishes two creation stories, the Priestly (P) one in Genesis 1:!-2:4a and the Yahwist (J) account in 2:4b-3:24. He says it ...


1

In The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis, Leon R. Kass looks at whether there really are two different accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. On pages 55-57, Kass discusses the main differences between chapter 1 and chapter 2, and concludes the second story is not just a magnified version of the human portions of the first. He says it is utterly distinct ...


1

I believe Genesis 1:1 says... בראשית (In first [there is no definite article, just like John 1:1]) ברא (prepares) אלהים (the gods) את (a-z) השמים (the heavens/space) ואת (and a-z) הארץ׃ (the land/matter) This seems to say that there was something called "the first" which prepared all things. The only thing I've been able to come up with is that ...


1

If this question is answered with the knowledge of God found in Scripture the answer is no, the woman was not an afterthought. An all-knowing God does not have an afterthought during His work of creation (or any other time). Genesis 1 makes clear creating man and woman was a planned action. Nevertheless, it is commonly accepted among contemporary scholars ...


1

It is clear that the creation of Eve was an afterthought. It is only after God has taken Adam and put him in the Garden, and after he has given Adam instructions to look after the Garden, told him what he can eat but not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that God decides to create company for Adam: Genesis 2:15-18: And the LORD God ...


1

There is no suggestion that the ancient Hebrews believed in the fire-breathing dragons of medieval lore, but they did believe in supernatural monsters loosely described as 'chaos monsters'. These were mythological creatures that inhabit creation stories and had to be defeated in order to bring order to the world. Behemoth literally means 'great beast' and ...


1

It seems the story of temptation can only be explained in one of three ways: a talking snake, Satan disguised as a snake, or the whole story was a creation of man. Snakes are physically and intellectually incapable of speech, yet the biblical serpent was certainly not Satan. For Satan to have used the serpent means that Satan was able to deceive God, because ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible