The "Framework" interpretation of Genesis; Eve may not be the first woman created.

 The framework analysis of Genesis says that the first three days are days of creation and separation whereas the last three days are days of adorning. 

How is it that the first three days are days of creation and separation? Well, the first day is where day/night is created and separated. The second day is where the higher water is separated from the lower water, giving rise to the sky and sea. The third day is where the sea is separated, giving rise to the land. These three first days are days of creation and separation.

The next three days are days of adorning. The fourth day is where God adorns the first day’s  day/night separation with the sun, stars, and moon. The fifth day is where God adorns the second day’s sky and sea with birds and fish. The sixth day is where God adorns the third day’s separation of the water giving rise to land with a human and animals.

Moreover, Aquinas says that the number six being the day in which creation is completed is significant because of the fact that day 1, day 2, and day 3 are all aliquots of 6. What is an aliquot? An aliquot is when some number fits with another number perfectly through something like multiplication. For example, 5 is the aliquot of 15 because 5 multiplied by 3 makes 15 perfectly. So too, 1 is the aliquot of 6 because 1 multiplied by 6 makes 6 perfectly. 2 is the aliquot of 6 because 2 multiplied by 3 makes 6 perfectly. 3 is the aliquot of 6 because 3 multiplied by 2 makes 6 perfectly.


Eve may not be the first literal woman created. Here is the proof: Genesis 1 says, “male and female he created them” on day six of creation. But Eve was created in the later chapter of Genesis 2 out of Adam’s side. So how is it that the author of Genesis was willing to allow this achronological description of God’s creation of the first woman? It makes sense the most if the author was not intending to give a literal chronological account of God’s creation of the first woman.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dr. Alexander Pruss's Blog called, "Sexual Orientation" against same-sex sexual relationships: Minh's commentary

  Consider the following two claims that some people seem to accept [so, for example, i guess that most secular college students would accept these 2 claims] : Same-sex and opposite-sex sexual relationships are on par [so it’s not like it’s better to be in a same-sex sexual relationship than opposite sex sexual relationship, and vice versa–no…rather, they are on par or equal to each other]. Heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality are on par [so it’s not like it’s better to be heterosexual than homosexual , or it’s not like it’s better to be homosexual than heterosexual, or it’s not like it’s better to be bisexual than homosexual, or it’s not like it’s better to be bisexual than heterosexual–no! Rather these three orientations are simply on par or equal] , and persons of one orientation do not have reason to try to change to another [so, if i’m a homosexual, i do not have reason to try to change to be heterosexual or bisexual, etc. because they are all on par to each other]...
Read more

Q: "Why does Paul mention James before Peter (Galatians 2:7-9) and why is Peters' name used as "Cephas" instead sometimes?"

  Firstly, if the hidden assumption behind the question here is, “Any name mentioned first in a list of names necessarily means that the person holding that name mentioned first is superior to all others in that list” then we should recognize that the assumption is not always true. Now, of course, Peter’s name is mentioned first when it comes to the listing of apostles, and that’s a case to be made for his superiority among the apostles. But, this type of conclusion is made with (1) the additional biblical and historical data that shows Peter was in fact the leader of the apostles, and (2) the fact that Peter is consistently mentioned first not only one time, but many times over and over, making it more likely. Second, I want to recognize that this is a good question, and we can actually see the logical pattern as to how Paul lists the four people (me [Paul], James and Cephas and John), as opposed to being merely random. But before that, it is important for us readers to recognize ...
Read more

Reflections on pridefulness versus humbleness.

 I just noticed recently that I am prideful. The pride that I have is implicit in my mind. This implicitness is why I am prideful. If I realized that I am prideful, I would have tried to stop my prideful actions or thoughts or words immediately. I did not give enough thought into how my actions are prideful. Perhaps they are not prideful actually, but just seem prideful from a third person perspective. People can find me to seemingly be prideful in anything I do so it is impossible to not seem prideful, but there exists a spectrum in which pride falls into. Pride can be seemingly miniscule or it can be absolutely puffed up. I would hope that a person who views me would at least seemingly assume that I am prideful in a miniscule manner as opposed to being absolutely puffed up.  The contrast to pridefulness is humbleness.  Humbleness does not always involve being quiet. For example, when a person asks me if I won my basketball game yesterday, it would not necessarily be hum...
Read more