Essay On Genesis And Exodus - Triepels Slagwerk
Perhaps God created the process of evolution as a way for life to survive the natural calamities that He knew would come, such as the meteorite impact at Chicxulub in Mexico's Yucatan Penninsula that is thought to have wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. A remnant of the animals (mammals, birds) apparently did survive and went on to re-populate the earth. This view is consistent with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18-19, where a remnant is saved because of God's mercy. (If you want to know why God sent or allowed the Chixculub meteorite in the first place when there was no sin of mankind to destroy, you'll have to ask Him when you get to heaven. I plan to. The same question applies to present-day hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and other natural disasters.) This view asserts that evolution is not God's ideal process for creating life, but instead evolution is God's way of providing for life to survive and thrive in a difficult and dangerous universe. Life on earth has indeed survived for many millions of years despite the worst that satan could throw at it. The universe is good - good enough for us to marvel at along with the Psalmist. But God's ideal arrangement for life is . . . heaven!
Order plagiarism free custom written essay ..
The book of Genesis is Gods Word. What man did God use to write thispart of His Word? The first five books of the Bible were all written by Moses. These five books are called "the books of Moses," "the law," or "the Pentateuch (pentameans "five" and Pentateuch means "five volumes" or"fivefold book"). Jesus referred to the books that Moses wrote in John 5:46 andLuke 24:27,44.
I like the faith message that I get out of the "literary device" viewpoint. My only minor quibble is that the order of Genesis 1 is close enough to the natural scientific order. I believe that the general order of creation in Genesis 1 can be scientific as well as symbolic.
Write an essay of about 1000 words on one of these topics: ..
"Staff" (NIV, NRSV), "rod" (KJV) is maṭṭeh, "staff, rod, shaft" from the verb nāṭ�, "extend, stretch out." The staff is closely associated with the handin Exodus, and was used as a support when travelling, a common walking stick that was probably carried by every man. The staff could be used as a weapon, probably much like the medieval quarter-staff (Psalm 2:9; 23; 4; 89:32; Isaiah 10:24; 11:4), and was used for such everyday tasks as to thresh herbs (Isaiah 28:27) and count sheep (Ezekiel 20:37). A staff carried some value (Genesis 38:18), probably since suitable trees were somewhat scarce. It could also represent the authority of a leader (Numbers 17:1-11) as a kind of scepter (Psalm 110:2; Jeremiah 48:17).
The Exodus Essay Examples - New York essay
After a great deal of discussion regarding word choice in the English translation of the passages found in Genesis 2:18-20, Holding concludes "that there is [no] contradiction, but...G2 [the shorthand he gives to the second creation story starting at Genesis 2:4b] is reporting the order in order to stress man's dominion over the created animals." (italics ours) This strikes us as odd for a number of reasons. First of all, Holding is not arguing that indeed there isn't a differing sequence of creation between the two stories. He simply gives his opinion for why that difference is there. Secondly, he is claiming that the reason the contradiction (and we're aware that he isn't using that term) is there is purposeful. Holding claims that in the second creation account, the singular author is purposefully reordering the creation of man and beast to "stress man's dominion over the created animals." At first glance this argument almost sounds valid, especially when one looks at the passages he has supplied to support his point. What Holding has failed to do is let us see the rest of the story from Genesis 1, verses 26, 28-30.
We will write a custom essay sample on The Exodus or any ..
The only difference between the version that he uses and the one that we use is in word choice. In Holding's version the word "beast" is used instead of "animal" and "fowl" is used in place of "birds," but otherwise the versions are the same. Holding wants us to notice that, although God "formed" the animals and birds here, he brings before Adam animals, birds and --"the domestic creatures!" He then asks, "Where did they come from?" He humorously claims that cattle were " in Eden (a place of domestic specialty set aside!), and that the 'forming' of the beasts and fowls is an act of special creation, giving Adam 'samples' of these beasts and fowls from outside Eden for the sake of presenting them to the earth's appointed sovereign." He claims that, "In this passage the author clearly shows awareness of the cattle having already been created in G1, for he does not indicate their creation here, but rather assumes that they don't need to be created." It does that the second creation story is aware of the first from this observation. However, we're not sure how Holding arrives at his conclusion that the author of the second creation story "clearly" understood that the cattle had been created before in the first account. "Clearly" would be something more along the line of stating, "And, as the Lord God had created the cattle on the fifth day, he proceeded to create all the other beasts of the field and fowl of the air." Besides, what is really clear is that there is no indication that just were formed in the first creation account. Genesis 1:24 is very "clear" that "And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind." Notice that there is no differentiation between creatures here, wild domesticated. In addition, if the reason the author of the second creation account didn't mention the formation of cattle is because he already knew about their prior existence from "his" account in 1:24, why didn't he also know about his account of the creation of birds from 1:21? There is no precedent to assume that the second creation story is actually talking about a "special creation." This is just an example of another Bible-defending technique to twist scripture to match a preconceived idea. The Bible must be internally consistent to be the Word of God, true and unblemished from beginning to end. It's dishonest to the text, to be sure, but it is frequently done. We don't know why Holding thought this new "line of defense" would give us critics something new to "gnaw on," but we can safely say it wasn't tasty, was instead quite mushy and didn't have much substance. We suggest that Holding head back to the kitchen to try to cook up a more savory dish if he wants to continue to argue for singular authorship of the two creation stories in Genesis.