Biblical Account of Creation

[tjguitarz]

I was reading the first 2 chapters of Genesis and I have questions. What better place to bring them than CGA?

First, Genesis 1:3 and Genesis 1:16. They both describe the creation of light.

Genesis 1:3 "And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Genesis 1:16 "And God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars."

With both of these, God separate the light from the darkness. And both resulting in an evening and a morning on the first and the fourth day. The difference is that night and day are made in the first day, but then what is the light spoken of in verse 3? We know that night and day are lit by the sun and moon, but those aren't created until verse 16.

Next, we have the account of organism creation.

Genesis 1:20 "And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens."

Genesis 1:24 "And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds."

Genesis 1:26 "The God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..."

In chapter 1, it is clearly seen that first fish/birds are created, then beasts/creeping things, and THEN humans. But chapter 2 appears to tell another story...

Genesis 2:5-8 "When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground--then the Lord God formed the man of dust..."

Genesis 2:8 "And then the Lord God planted a garden in Eden..."

Genesis 2:18-19 "Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens..."

Chapter 2 seems to say that first man was made, then a garden, and then God made everything else as a helper for him. Chapter 1 and 2 don't seem to be in agreement.

I know the Bible often uses literary devices which have long weeded themselves out of our culture. Could someone clarify what is going on here?

 

[ewoksrule]

heheh you stumbled into a big one. People have been debating the differences in Genesis 1 and 2 for about as long as Calvinism vs Armenian debates I bet. Well actually it is not as "hot" a topic. It is actually more something that non-Christians always throw up in order to show there are errors in the Scriptures. It is a good topic to have a ready answer for, no doubt. I will take some time later to add what I understand about the topic, if I can find the time.

 

[Stc95]

I'm a little confused about what you are confused about. Are you confused that light and dark can happen without the light and that animals can live without plants to feed off of? If so, that is trying to use science to explain the supernatural. I've answered your questions with that thought process, but if you are confused about something else just lemme know.

but then what is the light spoken of in verse 3

God. Science says that without the sun there is no possible way for there to be light on Earth for 4 days. Therefor the only logical explanation that I can come up with is that the light came from God himself. This might be a sketchy illustration, but picture God as a wizard first coming into a cave. To see immediately he creates a mystical light. After he has gotten his surroundings he will create a fire, or other-more permanent light source. Now its hard to compare God to anything, and there are definitely holes in my analogy, but that is how I think of it with what I have. The light could have only come from one person, God.

As for the plant/animal question:
Remember that death didn't enter the world until after all of creation (Sin). Meaning that nothing died. So animals not only did not need to eat each other, but couldn't, because that would kill another animal. I'm assuming the animals were solely living on God's grace. Again, science says that this is impossible, but science doesn't define God. God defines science.

I'm only going off what I know of, so take what I say with a grain of salt.. or two.

 

[XionTawa]

In chapter 1, it is clearly seen that first fish/birds are created, then beasts/creeping things, and THEN humans. But chapter 2 appears to tell another story...

Not clearly...remember, just because something is written in a certain order doesn't mean it actually happened in that order unless specifically specified...

EDIT: Let me read over those verses, and I will be back...

EDIT 2: I am going with my above statement, but pertaining to chapter 2...

 

[Avesther]

John 8:12?

 

[ewoksrule]

Here is a great explanation from Answers in Genesis:

Genesis 1 and 2—complementary not contradictory

Since Moses was not an eyewitness to creation, Noah’s flood, or the events of the Tower of Babel, etc., presumably Genesis was a series of earlier records which Moses brought together in one publication under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

Because of the reference in the New Testament by Jesus to Moses and his authorship of the Pentateuch, there is very strong evidence to suggest that Moses was responsible for the Book of Genesis. Throughout Genesis the phrase, “These are the generations of . . .” (e.g., Gen. 2:4), occurs a number of times. From external evidence, such as the use of what is called the colophon system in Mesopotamia, linguists say that these link passages (“these are the generations of”) actually end each section. In other words, they are a kind of “signature” to most of the sections. Thus, in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 the first section goes from 1:1 to 2:4a, and the second section goes from 2:4b to 5:1a.

Many people say that Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2 are two contradictory accounts of creation. In reality, it is easy to see that these two accounts of creation are not contradictory but complementary. Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a is an account in chronological order (first, second, third, etc.) of the days of creation. Genesis 2:4b begins the second account, which is more detailed coverage of certain aspects of Genesis chapter 1. This second account is not meant to be chronological of each day of creation. In fact, it is meant to give a lot more of the details—particularly in relation to man and the garden—setting the scene for the fall of man in Genesis chapter 3.

The second account is extremely necessary for us to understand what happened in Genesis chapter 3. Not only that, the second account includes the actual details as to how God made man and woman, enabling us to understand more about the nature of the marriage relationship. The pattern of placing a more general account before the recording of certain specific events is not confined to the first two chapters of Genesis. We find it again in Genesis 10:2–32 where we have a population distribution table. This is followed by Genesis 11:1–10, which tells us what happened at Babel in about the third generation of the distribution genealogy in Genesis 10.

It should be noted that in Matthew 19:4–5, when Jesus replied concerning the question relating to marriage, He actually quoted from Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2, showing that He took them as complementary and authoritative. Matthew 19:4 states: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female” (Gen. 1:27). In Matthew 19:5, “And said, ‘for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh’” (Gen. 2:24).

 

[ppar3566]

EDIT: I thought this might be a nice quote to keep in mind when reading this. Aristotle: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Hi All,

I am going to give a different interpretation to what is come here and I don't think it will be overly popular. The reason I am doing this is that I think it is worth knowing that there are other interpretations held by Christians and that a literal YEC is not the default position in Christianity world wide. I am not asking anyone to believe this just an opportunity to see another point of view. OK

I would first note that a literal versus an allegorical interpretation of the Genesis creation account has an awful long history. There has been debate back and forward over this for some time so i just want to trace the history of the allegorical interpretation a little bit as I assume the literal interpretation is self evident.

Historical Jewish Interpretations:
In the past and even now there is division in the Jewish community relating to whether a literal or allegorical interpretation was most important. Around Paul's time and especially influential for Paul education was a dominate allegorical method. This method did not deny a literal interpretation but it did suggest that the mystical truth of scripture was to be found at the hidden or allegorical level. Some took this further to suggest that taking a purely literal interpretation was wrong, unhelpful and that other better literal accounts of creation were available else where. This was OK for many as the literal was only seen as packaging surrounding deep and mystical allegorical truths (The obvious mystical truth for the Gen account would be the God made the world and is better than ever other God). Here is a quote for a contemporary Rabbi of Paul which illustrates this view:

"If a man looks upon the Torah as merely a book presenting narratives and everyday matters, alas for him! Such a torah, one treating with everyday concerns, and indeed a more excellent one, we too, even we, could compile. More than that, in the possession of the rulers of the world there are books of even greater merit, and these we could emulate if we wished to compile some such torah. But the Torah, in all of its words, holds supernal truths and sublime secrets.
Thus the tales related in the Torah are simply her outer garments, and woe to the man who regards that outer garb as the Torah itself, for such a man will be deprived of portion in the next world. Thus David said:" Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law" (Psalms 119:18), that is to say, the things that are underneath. See now. The most visible part of a man are the clothes that he has on, and they who lack understanding, when they look at the man, are apt not to see more in him than these clothes. In reality, however, it is the body of the man that constitutes the pride of his clothes, and his soul constitutes the pride of his body.
Woe to the sinners who look upon the Torah as simply tales pertaining to things of the world, seeing thus only the outer garment. But the righteous whose gaze penetrates to the very Torah, happy are they. Just as wine must be in a jar to keep, so the Torah must also be contained in an outer garment. That garment is made up of the tales and stories; but we, we are bound to penetrate beyond."

Early Christian Allegory:
There is biblical evidence that Paul saw value in an allegorical interpretation of Genesis and that such interpretations could hold important aspects of truth. As is reflected by the following verse:

"For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman. The child of the slave was born according to the flesh; the child of the free woman was born through the promise. Now this is being allegorized: for these women are two covenants. One, indeed, is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. This is Hagar, for Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is a slave with her children. But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother." Galatians 4:22-26

Clearly Paul is not disavowing a literal interpretation but it is evidence that allegory and its link to truth are deeply embedded in early Christianity.

Again this allegorical level of the creation account is supported in early Christian doctrine in three ways.

A literal and Allegorical account:
This is that many 1 and 2 century Christians took Gen to be a literal account but did not believe in a literal interpretation of day as 24 hour. An example from i believe 2nd century:

"For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject." (Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 81)

A only allegorical account:
Other early and very influential Christian teachers supported a purely allegorical interpretation of the Gen creation stories. Suggesting them only as allegories to explain God as creator and ruler of all. Origen is the best example here as he spells it out clearly and was extremely influential in early Christian thinking. Here is a quote from around 100-185 AD:

"For who that has understanding will sup pose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, ex isted without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indi cate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally." (De Principiis IV, 3, 1 [6]).

The comparative approach:
This is Augustine's baby (arguable the most influential Christian behind Paul). He suggests that the majority of truth in scripture is hidden in allegorical form. He does not suggest abandoning the literal interpretation except where it contradicts logic or reasoning. Here is a quote that supports that that comes before his attempt to unravel the Gen creation story:
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])
"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9).

Modern Accounts:
Many large Christian denomination have supported an allegorical or literal with allegorical elements in recent years. Many non-Christians claim that this is an example of slippery Christians changing there long held literal views to fit science. I hope I have shown so far that at least a significant portion of Christianity has supported an allegorical or partially allegorical interpretation of the gen creation account for some time. I would rather suggest that modern YEC is actually a reaction to, not so much Darwin but certain perceived links between Darwin and socialism and later communism.I dont have time to deal with this here but a brief google of the history of the early 1900s book the fundamentals and the history of fundamentalism is worth an exploration for those interested.

SO WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE US.
What I have tried to show is that accounts of Genesis relating to a literal, allegorical or combination of the two has existed for some time. So how do we know which one and what does this have to do with the contradictions in the OP. Well modern argument has come down to a debate on 1. the original authors intent and 2. the initial interpretation of the original readers. The theory goes that the initial intention and interpretation must hold dominance over how the texts are interpreted today. this is not an easy feat as we have little evidence and in response to some atheists on the Dawkins forum the authors did not leave cliff notes lying around saying this is what I meant.

I would suggest that many scholars (including my Father)would still hold that the early interpretations are literal. The suggestion is that some elements certainly are allegorical but that were allegory is not obvious then the literal account is the correct one and the contradictions can be done away with when read in context. However some strong Christian and very well educated scholars do challenge that view. This is what they suggest.
1. Gen 1 and Gen 2 are not by the same author and are aimed at reflecting different things. If we accept the contradictions as inherent in two different accounts that are not meant to be taken literally all is well.
EDIT: I forgot to point out that the structure and style of Gen 1:1 to 2:3 is extremely unique and can be found nowhere else. Many claim that this style IS poetic, indicating a clear allegorical trend. I think it would be more prudent to say we are not sure what style it is because it is so unique but that it seems to have more features in common with a poetic rather than historical account.
2. The argument goes that the Gen accounts were reinterpretations of Babylonian and Egyptian creation myths that were, if you know this account, cleverly retold to assert the dominance of monotheism over polytheism and the Jewish God over other gods.
3. This can be seen by comparing the Babylonian and Egyptian accounts, both which predate Genesis, with the Gen account. I can give an account of these if anyone is interested. I will give a quick one though. The whole light before sun business is very very clever if taken from an allegorical perspective. Where have the Jews just come from? Egypt. Who is the main god there who is the creator? Ra the sun god. What is the author from an allegorical perspective trying to say. Well God and Light came before sun therefore the God is greater than Ra. One must really pay close attention to what Genesis is trying to establish and that is the central them that monotheism is better than polytheism and that polytheism is wrong, dangerous and that you cannot incorporate God into existing polytheistic structures.
4. If this is true the contradictions are of not worrying as Gen was never meant to be a blow by blow account.

Anywho, I hope you don't all flame me just wanted to but across an opposing view that is at least a significant section of the worlds Christian population holds to. Even if they may not know entirely why. I should note that I am not out to really have an argument about this and if people want to take this as crap then I have no problem with that. I will however, happily answer answer questions and quires and most likely state "I dont know" over and over again.

 

[ppar3566]

I have been having this conversation over on a atheist website for some time and I have noticed a common misconception that is held by both fundamentalist Christians and some positivist leaning atheists that I thought I would preempt here.

Misconception 1:

"If Genesis is allegorical then it is a lie and I thought God could not lie."

For me it is only a lie if the author intended it to be taken as truth. We are unfortunate that the bible is a written document here and is not 'present' (I use this term somewhat loosely) to defend itself over claims of lies or what not. Indeed, the bible is full of stories that are not intended to be taken literally and are yet contain essential and valuable truths. Sometimes this is pointed out very clearly such as when Paul says "Now this is being allegorized" or when Jesus sits down to tell a parable. Sometimes however it is not so clear such as when "God stretches out his hand against X,Y,Z" some have in the history of the church seen this to mean God literally does have a hand and that he did use it to punish groups of people. I think most however would agree this is not the case and the "hand of God" is clearly allegorical.

Misconception 2:

'If Genesis was used to retell other peoples myths then it must be setting up the retelling as literally true'

The problem with this is it presupposes that the initial readers where unaware of the parallels between Egyptian and Babylonian creations myths. In the mind of many is this idea that a few leaders went behind a shrub somewhere and said "hehe this story from the Egyptians is excellent lets take it and twist it a little tell all them out there this is how it happened and they will never know the difference".

For most of the modern (I do not know the ancient ones in detail to comment) the links between the creations myths and Genesis would not only have been known by the Jewish people but that knowledge would have been required to make the point of the Genesis creation account. This is not unheard of in the bible. Both Jesus and Paul twist existing story and historical story structures to make very important points. Jesus' parables are frequently means of setting up social expectations and then twisting those expectations on there heads in order to make a point (that the young son who whored all his money away turns out to be the one with the party while the older 'good' brother gets none). Likewise in two places Paul recreates the Roman household code to emphasis the new Christian social structure where everyone is equal.

Some would then argue "well why would people follow a religion when it knew the creation story was allegorical". Well allegories have in the history of human life been used extensively to convey essential truths seen as central to the development of different social groups. For example I dare say we all try and live by the truth 'treat everyone as your neighbor' regardless of the fact we know Jesus was expressing this truth in allegorical form.

 

[XionTawa]

2 Peter 1:19-21

"19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

 

[ewoksrule]

a quote from ken ham:

Now, consider Exodus 20:1: “And God spoke all these words, saying . . . .” Now, when the Creator God spoke as recorded in Exodus 20:1, what did He (Jesus) say? As we read on, we find this statement: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day” (Exodus 20:11).

Yes, Jesus did explicitly say He created in six days. Not only this, but the one who spoke the words “six days” also wrote them down for Moses: “Then the Lord delivered to me two tablets of stone written with the finger of God, and on them were all the words which the Lord had spoken to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly” (Deuteronomy 9:10).

Jesus said clearly that He created in six days. And He even did something He didn’t do with most of Scripture—He wrote it down Himself. How clearer and more authoritative can you get than that?

 

[Odale]

If it is so completely understood that the earth was created in six days because God wrote it down Himself, then why do Genesis 2 disagree with Genesis 1 disagree?

 

[ewoksrule]

but they dont

 

[ppar3566]

Hi Folks,

In response to the ken Ham quote I would point to the dangers of translation.

To set the scene let me give you my best example.

Western Metaphysics is based in part of the dominance of the spoken word over the written word based on a passage by Plato in which Socrates says to another that writing is Pharmakon. This has consistently been interpreted as poison in English/German/etc. Of course Pharmakon does not just mean posiion it also means cure or remedy.

This is also the case when it comes to the translation of 'yom' into 'day' in English version of the bible. There is little indication whether it should be so and there are times in Genesis in which yom certainly does not mean day. Yom can just as easily mean period of time.

This is not the only place such translation decision come to effect meaning in the bible. Other important examples include Romans 12 where a verse is translated "this is your spiritual act of worship" when it could just as correctly (perhaps more correctly) be translated "this is your rational act of worship". Another relevant example is the verse that is translated "all scripture [is] God breathed". Unfortunately the 'is' is not included in the Greek and thus an equally valid translation is "all scripture [that is] God breathed".

Funnily enough this has been know for some time where even some of the "The Fundamentals" (or early fundamentalists- I dont have the history to hand) authors acknowledged that "we believe in the perfect word of God as revealed in the original scriptures". Of course this is a prudent step but it does make translation and interpretation difficult as we have no original scriptures available.

In passing someone also noted a verse which says that no one should have a personal interpretation of the prophesies. There are two things i would say to this.

1. To not have a personal interpretation of scripture is simply impossible. Our brains do not have the cognitive capacity to render what we read perfectly and thus biases, heuristics, self-fulfilling prophecy, etc. makes a personal interpretation inevitable.
2. I dont think this is quite what the poster was getting at but rather was challenging the post modern idea (or the lay persons version of post modernism which in passing I think is neither true or fair) that all interpretations are equally valid. I also would suggest that only one interpretation should be taken as correct, but it does not necessarily follow that at YEC interpretation is the divine one. A strong case for this could be made if YEC had been the only interpretation and an allegorical interpretation is a modern invention. I hope i have showed in my previous posts however that this is not the case and that allegorical/literal/and combination approaches have existed together pre-Christ and in early Christian teaching. In this case I think you do need to try to discover original author intent and initial reading. This is definitely hard but i think a reasonable good case can be made from the available evidence that an allegorical interpretation of at least Gen 1:1 to 2:3.

 

[cc.slim]

The story began with flawless perfection. Then after many campfires, a flood, and lack of true Godly devotion our understanding and ability to understand his perfect language changed as told to confound those whose words spoke of God's will but their hearts did not. A language barrier hmm, Ya think? hehehe wOOt Love what you see. Love what you hear. Love with all your heart, and then you'll know whats true!

 

[ppar3566]

2 Peter 1:19-21

"19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private [inspiration], 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

FIXED: Another unfortunate English translation issue.

 

[XionTawa]

FIXED: Another unfortunate English translation issue.

I am not a big fan at all of making things to be prefect when it comes to intellectual things, and I am having a lot of problems seeing your point in the change of word...and why it matters? The Holy Spirit revealed to me the meaning of the verse, so a "correct" translation was not necessary...if you know what I am saying...(most likely I am not saying what I want to, and it is probably coming out wrong and being misunderstood...just a note)...

 

[shadetaker]

2 Peter 1:19-21

"19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private [inspiration], 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

FIXED: Another unfortunate English translation issue.

Sorry but this is incorrect, interpretation is a closer translation of the Greek "επιλυσεωσ."

Greek New Testament 4th Revised Edition - επιλυσεωσ: interpretation, explaination

Oxford Greek-English Lexicon (the middle Liddell): επιλυσεωσ is the participial form of επιλυω which is to loose or untie, idiomatically it might be thought of as disentanglement, which is corresponds to translation/interpretation more than inspiration

 

[ppar3566]

Sorry but this is incorrect, interpretation is a closer translation of the Greek "επιλυσεωσ."

Greek New Testament 4th Revised Edition - επιλυσεωσ: interpretation, explaination

Oxford Greek-English Lexicon (the middle Liddell): επιλυσεωσ is the participial form of επιλυω which is to loose or untie, idiomatically it might be thought of as disentanglement, which is corresponds to translation/interpretation more than inspiration

I had the unfortunate experience of growing up with a father who has been for the last 20 years prof of biblical languages and did his doctorate on 1 Peter. Indeed I could honestly say I don't think would be many in the world with a better knowledge of 1 Peter in its original language than him. I double checked this with him and he assures me that the context of the word most certainly should be inspiration not interpretation.

I say this not as an argument from authority but to indicate I most certainly did my homework before posting.

 

[ppar3566]

I am not a big fan at all of making things to be prefect when it comes to intellectual things, and I am having a lot of problems seeing your point in the change of word...and why it matters? The Holy Spirit revealed to me the meaning of the verse, so a "correct" translation was not necessary...if you know what I am saying...(most likely I am not saying what I want to, and it is probably coming out wrong and being misunderstood...just a note)...

I did not mean to offend let me give my reasons.

First I spent considerable time on my original post only to be greeted with an instant dismissal by you by the quoting of a single verse (or so I thought, seriously forgive me if i was wrong). I think i might have been a little hasty on this but I went to alot of work and I would have hoped people would have interacted with what I wrote rather than dismissing it out of hand.This lead me to check out the verse where I found that in context it did not mean what you were purposing it to mean but rather that not part of the bible was inspired by man but all by God.

In sum if I offended then i am sorry and I do get what your saying.

 

[shadetaker]

I had the unfortunate experience of growing up with a father who has been for the last 20 years prof of biblical languages and did his doctorate on 1 Peter. Indeed I could honestly say I don't think would be many in the world with a better knowledge of 1 Peter in its original language than him. I double checked this with him and he assures me that the context of the word most certainly should be inspiration not interpretation.

I say this not as an argument from authority but to indicate I most certainly did my homework before posting.

That may well be the case, but seeing as how every major translation (which, I point out, are translated and edited by scholars who are also language specialists with years of work in the books they are responsible for translating) and other scholarly sources cite it as as it was first quoted, I nonetheless feel confident in saying that that version is more likely to be correct.

Does your father have any articles or such on the subject that might be easily perused? I would be interested to have a look.