P
PrestonPrice
Guest
Genesis 2 seems to be another creation story. The events of creation do not match.How does the Church interpret this chapter?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
spauline
Guest
I don’t know, but here is one way to look at the fact that man only appears at the end in the first story, and is present from the beginning in the second story.Genesis 2 seems to be another creation story. The events of creation do not match.How does the Church interpret this chapter?
for many ECFs, the days of creation are a metaphor for the recreation of man, that is, the world’s redemption.
So, from ONE perspective, man was not REmade in image and likeness of God, until Catholic Christendom, the sixth age of salvation history (sixth “day” or recreation.)
But from another view, God was already beginning to remake man in His image with the Flood, for the OT is itself also salvific, as it already imparts grace and truth to humanity to prepare for coming of Messiah.
Hence, man’s presence from the early part of creation, and not merely in the sixth day, communicates that as early as the Flood, or beginning of salvation history, God is recreating man.
Does this help?
D
davidv
Guest
When I studied Genesis with Jeff Cavins, one of the distinctions between chapters 1 and 2 was that in chapter one we see a discription of the creation of “form” and the filling of the “void”
Both stories are about creation, but from two different perspectives.
The earth was without form and void…
Chapter 2 is about relationships. Man’s to God and Man’s to the rest of creation.Gn 1:2
Both stories are about creation, but from two different perspectives.
D
Della
Guest
Exactly. Genesis 1 tells us the very basic mechanics of creation and Gn. 2 simply builds on what has already been established. The compilers of Genesis (from the writings of Moses and the oral traditions he passed down) knew perfectly well what they were doing. It’s not like they just threw a couple of creation stories together just because they couldn’t choose between them. Each version one tells us something the other one doesn’t, that’s all there is to that.When I studied Genesis with Jeff Cavins, one of the distinctions between chapters 1 and 2 was that in chapter one we see a discription of the creation of “form” and the filling of the “void”
Chapter 2 is about relationships. Man’s to God and Man’s to the rest of creation.
Both stories are about creation, but from two different perspectives.
S
spauline
Guest
of course that is your thinking, because you are contraceptive of doctrinal development., that’s all there is to that.
it is why don’t care about the apocalypse. you go from one extreem to the other: from flaming-Tim_lahay-the-world-is-ending to the liberal trash of resistance literature.
There is more to Divine Revelation than you are willing to admit.
You are like a hard-hearted convert: you want conservative Protestants to be as LEAST correct as possible, which is why you revel in taking the opposite extreme to them whenever possible.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Genesis 2 from the Haydock Bible Commentary
CHAPTER II.
Ver. 1. After this. In process of time, without reference to what immediately precedes. The Hebrew and Septuagint omit these words. (Haydock) — The marriage of Amram, grandson of Levi, with his aunt or cousin, had taken place before the persecution. Tostat and others suppose, that people were not then forbidden to marry their aunts. But it is probable Jochabed was only the grand-daughter of Levi, and the daughter of one of Amram’s brothers, as the Septuagint insinuate. Otherwise their ages would have been very disproportionate. See chap. vi. 20. (Calmet)
Ver. 2. Goodly. Handsome, elegant, Hebrews xi. 23; agreeable to God, Acts vii. 20. Josephus says, Amram had been assured by God that the child should be the deliverer of his people. Yet he neglects not to use every prudent precaution. (Worthington) — Months. Hebrew moons; whence some erroneously infer, that the Hebrew year was not solar. (Calmet)
Ver. 3. Bulrushes, or paper plant, growing on the banks of the Nile. Such little vessels were used in Egypt in Lucan’s time. Conseritur bibula Memphitis cymba papyro. (Menochius) — Sedges, to prevent it from being carried away by the stream. Cajetan thinks the Hebrews did not drown their children; but by thus exposing them, abandoned them to the king’s use, Acts vii. 19.
Ver. 4. His sister, Mary, who was born at the beginning of this persecution, and was therefore called bitterness. (Haydock) — She was about 12 years old. (Menochius)
Ver. 5. Daughter, and sole heiress. (Haydock) — She is called Thermut by Josephus, and Meris by Artapanus. She was going to bathe, or to purify herself, according to the custom of the country; or perhaps she was going to wash linen, as Nausicrae, the daughter of Alcinous, was doing, when she met Ulysses. (Calmet)
Ver. 6. Hebrews, against whom the persecution raged. She saw it had received circumcision. (Theod. q. in Ex.)
Ver. 10. Moses, or Moyses, in the Egyptian tongue, signifies one taken or saved out of the water. (Challoner) — Mo, signifies water in the Egyptian tongue; Mosse, “he drew out,” in Hebrew. Philo believes that the princess feigned him to be her own child. Moses denied that he was, and would not take advantage of this adoption, Hebrews xi. 24. He was grown up, and had been well instructed by his parents, ver. 9. He afterwards became well versed in all the sciences, (Acts vii. 22,) rejecting what was idle and superstitious. Josephus assures us he became a great conqueror. (Calmet)
Ver. 12. He slew the Egyptian. This he did by a particular inspiration of God; as a prelude to his delivering the people from their oppression and bondage. He thought, says St. Stephen, (Acts vii. 25,) that his brethren understood that God by his hand would save them. But such particular and extraordinary examples are not to be imitated. (Challoner) — He was inspired, on this occasion, to stand up in defence of the innocent. (Menochius) (St. Thomas Aquinas, ii. 2, q. 60.) — The laws of Egypt required every person to protect the oppressed; or, if unable to do it, he was to call in the aid of the magistrate. (Diod. i.) (Calmet) — Moses looked round to see if there was any help near. He was 40 years old when he was forced to flee.
Ver. 14. Feared. St. Paul, (Hebrews xi. 27,) is speaking of his leaving Egypt, at the head of the people, when he says, not fearing the fierceness of the king. Without being dismayed on this occasion, by the unexpected discovery of what he had done, (which was perhaps undesignedly made public by the Hebrew whom he had rescued,) he resolves not to tempt God. (Haydock)
Ver. 15. Madian. A city and country of Arabia, which took its name from Madian the son of Abraham, by Cetura, and was peopled by his posterity. (Challoner) — There were, perhaps, some of the descendants of Cham, by his son Chus, intermixed with them; (Haydock) and hence Aaron reproaches the wife of Moses for being a Chusite, Numbers xii. 1. Jethro was a Cinean, descended from the same stock.
Ver. 16. Priest. Hebrew cohen, (or cen,) means also a prince, as the Chaldean has it. When put in this manner, with the name of a place, it is generally taken in this sense. But formerly kings were also priests. Jethro served the true God, like Job, in the midst of a perverse generation, and offered sacrifice to him, when he joined the camp of the Israelites, Exodus xviii. 11. (Calmet)
Ver. 18. Raguel. He had two names, being also called Jethro, as appears from the first verse of the following chapter. (Challoner) — He is also called Hobab and Ceni. (Numbers x. 2; Judges i. 16.) Perhaps Raguel was father of Jethro. (Drusius.)
Ver. 21. Swore. Hebrew Goel is rendered “was willing.” — Sym.[Symmachus?] has, “He conjured Moses;” and Theo., “Moses began to dwell.” The Septuagint neglect the word entirely, “But Moses took up his abode.”
Ver. 22. Gersam, or Gershom. This name signifies, a stranger there: as Eliezer signifies the help of God. (Challoner) — And she, &c., is wanting both in Hebrew and Chaldean, but found in the Complut. edit. of the Septuagint. It occurs (chap. xviii. 4,) and we might naturally expect to find it in this place. (Calmet)
Ver. 23. Died in the year of the world 2494. His successor, Amenophis, treading in his footsteps, was drowned 19 years afterwards. (Usher.)
Ver. 25. Knew them; that is, he had respect to them, he cast a merciful eye upon them. (Challoner) — Hebrew, “he had regard for them;” and, as some Latin copies read, delivered them. (Calmet)
CHAPTER II.
Ver. 1. After this. In process of time, without reference to what immediately precedes. The Hebrew and Septuagint omit these words. (Haydock) — The marriage of Amram, grandson of Levi, with his aunt or cousin, had taken place before the persecution. Tostat and others suppose, that people were not then forbidden to marry their aunts. But it is probable Jochabed was only the grand-daughter of Levi, and the daughter of one of Amram’s brothers, as the Septuagint insinuate. Otherwise their ages would have been very disproportionate. See chap. vi. 20. (Calmet)
Ver. 2. Goodly. Handsome, elegant, Hebrews xi. 23; agreeable to God, Acts vii. 20. Josephus says, Amram had been assured by God that the child should be the deliverer of his people. Yet he neglects not to use every prudent precaution. (Worthington) — Months. Hebrew moons; whence some erroneously infer, that the Hebrew year was not solar. (Calmet)
Ver. 3. Bulrushes, or paper plant, growing on the banks of the Nile. Such little vessels were used in Egypt in Lucan’s time. Conseritur bibula Memphitis cymba papyro. (Menochius) — Sedges, to prevent it from being carried away by the stream. Cajetan thinks the Hebrews did not drown their children; but by thus exposing them, abandoned them to the king’s use, Acts vii. 19.
Ver. 4. His sister, Mary, who was born at the beginning of this persecution, and was therefore called bitterness. (Haydock) — She was about 12 years old. (Menochius)
Ver. 5. Daughter, and sole heiress. (Haydock) — She is called Thermut by Josephus, and Meris by Artapanus. She was going to bathe, or to purify herself, according to the custom of the country; or perhaps she was going to wash linen, as Nausicrae, the daughter of Alcinous, was doing, when she met Ulysses. (Calmet)
Ver. 6. Hebrews, against whom the persecution raged. She saw it had received circumcision. (Theod. q. in Ex.)
Ver. 10. Moses, or Moyses, in the Egyptian tongue, signifies one taken or saved out of the water. (Challoner) — Mo, signifies water in the Egyptian tongue; Mosse, “he drew out,” in Hebrew. Philo believes that the princess feigned him to be her own child. Moses denied that he was, and would not take advantage of this adoption, Hebrews xi. 24. He was grown up, and had been well instructed by his parents, ver. 9. He afterwards became well versed in all the sciences, (Acts vii. 22,) rejecting what was idle and superstitious. Josephus assures us he became a great conqueror. (Calmet)
Ver. 12. He slew the Egyptian. This he did by a particular inspiration of God; as a prelude to his delivering the people from their oppression and bondage. He thought, says St. Stephen, (Acts vii. 25,) that his brethren understood that God by his hand would save them. But such particular and extraordinary examples are not to be imitated. (Challoner) — He was inspired, on this occasion, to stand up in defence of the innocent. (Menochius) (St. Thomas Aquinas, ii. 2, q. 60.) — The laws of Egypt required every person to protect the oppressed; or, if unable to do it, he was to call in the aid of the magistrate. (Diod. i.) (Calmet) — Moses looked round to see if there was any help near. He was 40 years old when he was forced to flee.
Ver. 14. Feared. St. Paul, (Hebrews xi. 27,) is speaking of his leaving Egypt, at the head of the people, when he says, not fearing the fierceness of the king. Without being dismayed on this occasion, by the unexpected discovery of what he had done, (which was perhaps undesignedly made public by the Hebrew whom he had rescued,) he resolves not to tempt God. (Haydock)
Ver. 15. Madian. A city and country of Arabia, which took its name from Madian the son of Abraham, by Cetura, and was peopled by his posterity. (Challoner) — There were, perhaps, some of the descendants of Cham, by his son Chus, intermixed with them; (Haydock) and hence Aaron reproaches the wife of Moses for being a Chusite, Numbers xii. 1. Jethro was a Cinean, descended from the same stock.
Ver. 16. Priest. Hebrew cohen, (or cen,) means also a prince, as the Chaldean has it. When put in this manner, with the name of a place, it is generally taken in this sense. But formerly kings were also priests. Jethro served the true God, like Job, in the midst of a perverse generation, and offered sacrifice to him, when he joined the camp of the Israelites, Exodus xviii. 11. (Calmet)
Ver. 18. Raguel. He had two names, being also called Jethro, as appears from the first verse of the following chapter. (Challoner) — He is also called Hobab and Ceni. (Numbers x. 2; Judges i. 16.) Perhaps Raguel was father of Jethro. (Drusius.)
Ver. 21. Swore. Hebrew Goel is rendered “was willing.” — Sym.[Symmachus?] has, “He conjured Moses;” and Theo., “Moses began to dwell.” The Septuagint neglect the word entirely, “But Moses took up his abode.”
Ver. 22. Gersam, or Gershom. This name signifies, a stranger there: as Eliezer signifies the help of God. (Challoner) — And she, &c., is wanting both in Hebrew and Chaldean, but found in the Complut. edit. of the Septuagint. It occurs (chap. xviii. 4,) and we might naturally expect to find it in this place. (Calmet)
Ver. 23. Died in the year of the world 2494. His successor, Amenophis, treading in his footsteps, was drowned 19 years afterwards. (Usher.)
Ver. 25. Knew them; that is, he had respect to them, he cast a merciful eye upon them. (Challoner) — Hebrew, “he had regard for them;” and, as some Latin copies read, delivered them. (Calmet)
J
Jack_245814
Guest
If you’re interested in making them “fit” in a literal sense, here’s how I think of it (but take this with a big grain of salt, I’m just a layman who likes to read his bible in the evenings):
Chapter I: You know the drill - creation of everything in six days
Chapter II: Rest on seventh day; then, at verses 4-6:
“These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth: And every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth. But a spring rose out of the earth, watering all the surface of the earth.”
I’ve always thought of this as that everything was created in Form in the first six days, but they didn’t actually exist physically (or at least on Earth) until after the seventh day. He created the potential for man and plants and animals, the concept of them if you will, but they didn’t come into being on the Earth until he brought forth a spring (presumably in Eden). Of course this relies on the shaky assumption that verse 4 is referencing Genesis 1, when it could be referencing itself.
The non-living things, on the other hand, the waters and firmament and all that, were created physically during the first six days (or at least that’s implied in Genesis 2).
The actual interpretation I’ve read often in the notes to different bibles is that Genesis 2 is a different creation story “grafted on” to Genesis 1 (the Documentary Hypothesis), and that’s probably true; what I’ve presented here is just the way I “imagine” it.
Or, alternatively (just reread the first two chapters), the animals were physically on earth but the plants and herbs had not yet sprung up, and nor had man. This seems a little inconsistent though, and either one could be true: the scripture only refers directly to “plants and herbs” as not existing but it seems odd that animals would exist but plants wouldn’t. It’s probably just a poetic/literary thing that I miss since I’m an English-speaker and whatnot.
Chapter I: You know the drill - creation of everything in six days
Chapter II: Rest on seventh day; then, at verses 4-6:
“These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth: And every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth. But a spring rose out of the earth, watering all the surface of the earth.”
I’ve always thought of this as that everything was created in Form in the first six days, but they didn’t actually exist physically (or at least on Earth) until after the seventh day. He created the potential for man and plants and animals, the concept of them if you will, but they didn’t come into being on the Earth until he brought forth a spring (presumably in Eden). Of course this relies on the shaky assumption that verse 4 is referencing Genesis 1, when it could be referencing itself.
The non-living things, on the other hand, the waters and firmament and all that, were created physically during the first six days (or at least that’s implied in Genesis 2).
The actual interpretation I’ve read often in the notes to different bibles is that Genesis 2 is a different creation story “grafted on” to Genesis 1 (the Documentary Hypothesis), and that’s probably true; what I’ve presented here is just the way I “imagine” it.
Or, alternatively (just reread the first two chapters), the animals were physically on earth but the plants and herbs had not yet sprung up, and nor had man. This seems a little inconsistent though, and either one could be true: the scripture only refers directly to “plants and herbs” as not existing but it seems odd that animals would exist but plants wouldn’t. It’s probably just a poetic/literary thing that I miss since I’m an English-speaker and whatnot.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.