In the Beginning....

[Thinkingstuff]

May I ask where do you get this idea from?

Genesis 2:5-7

 

[Dr. Walter]

Genesis 2:5-7

Genesis 2:5
2:5 before it grew. This statement clearly teaches the fact of a mature creation, or creation of apparent age. The first plants did not grow from seeds, but were created full grown.

Genesis 2:5
2:5 rain upon the earth. The primeval hydrological cycle was subterranean rather than atmospheric (see note on Genesis 1:7), the absence of rain being a consequence of the water vapor above the firmament and the uniform temperature which it maintained over the earth. Rain today is dependent on the global circulation of the atmosphere, transporting water evaporated from the ocean inland to condense and precipitate on the lands. This circulation is driven by worldwide temperature differences in the atmosphere and would be impossible with the global warmth sustained by the canopy.

- Creation Institute website and the Defenders Bible.

Many scholars recognize this as referring to the process of REPRODUCTION rather than the initial herbs created by God.

 

[DHK]

Context, Thinkingstuff; Context!
Genesis chapter one speaks of God's creation. It is an historical account of how God created the heaven and the earth just like he said he did in verse one. Verse one is a summary verse, and then he proceeds to tell us how he did it verse by verse, day by day. Not hard to understand.

Genesis chapter two the focus changes. The focus is now on Adam and Eve, not on all of creation. He is speaking of how Adam was created in His image, how he breathed into him the breath of life; how Eve was created, the description of the garden, the instructions to keep it, the prohibition, etc. It is all about Adam and Eve. This is not an account about the creation. It is account of Adam and Eve. There are a very few verses at the beginning of the chapter to tie it in to the first chapter. The Lord is a good author after all. But you fault the Holy Spirit for not being up to your standards as a writer?? I guess you should have asked to trade places with Him. He wrote the Book.
The second chapter concentrates on the creation of Adam and Eve, and on their activity in the Garden of Eve. There is little other information given to indicate that this is a second creation. That position is untenable. The few facts given in the few beginning verses simply refer back to chapter one, before the Lord begins to expand on the major topic of the chapter--Adam and Eve.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Genesis 2:5
2:5 before it grew. This statement clearly teaches the fact of a mature creation, or creation of apparent age. The first plants did not grow from seeds, but were created full grown.

Genesis 2:5
2:5 rain upon the earth. The primeval hydrological cycle was subterranean rather than atmospheric (see note on Genesis 1:7), the absence of rain being a consequence of the water vapor above the firmament and the uniform temperature which it maintained over the earth. Rain today is dependent on the global circulation of the atmosphere, transporting water evaporated from the ocean inland to condense and precipitate on the lands. This circulation is driven by worldwide temperature differences in the atmosphere and would be impossible with the global warmth sustained by the canopy.

- Creation Institute website and the Defenders Bible.

Many scholars recognize this as referring to the process of REPRODUCTION rather than the initial herbs created by God.

Let me break it down for you
Genesis 2:5

Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth

Genesis 2:5

and no plant had yet sprung up,

Now what do these terms indicate to you?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Context, Thinkingstuff; Context!

I understand context. But Doesn't the bible speak for itself? Seems pretty clear to me.

Genesis chapter one speaks of God's creation. It is an historical account of how God created the heaven and the earth just like he said he did in verse one. Verse one is a summary verse, and then he proceeds to tell us how he did it verse by verse, day by day. Not hard to understand.

Ok

Genesis chapter two the focus changes. The focus is now on Adam and Eve, not on all of creation.

I know the focus is on Adam however no shrub no plants are contrary to Genesis 1 account of Day 3 is the setting which the story places the creation of Adam which occured according to genesis 1 on day 6.

The Lord is a good author after all. But you fault the Holy Spirit for not being up to your standards as a writer??

He doesn't seem to be consistent with in his own story. I know in college fictional writing class I would have been marked down for that

guess you should have asked to trade places with Him. He wrote the Book.

Actually according to Tradition Moses wrote the book as God inspired him.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Let me break it down for you
Genesis 2:5
Genesis 2:5 Now what do these terms indicate to you?

You can't pit one scripture against another scripture and expect you will come to a correct understanding of either scripture:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Genesis 2:5 is in the context of "till the soil" or farming not in the context of creating. There had not been any placement in the ground and growth by man until God put Adam in the Garden to cultivate it through the reproductive processes of what God already had created fully mature.

 

[DHK]

I know the focus is on Adam however no shrub no plants are contrary to Genesis 1 account of Day 3 is the setting which the story places the creation of Adam which occured according to genesis 1 on day 6. He doesn't seem to be consistent with in his own story.

If the focus is on Adam, why do you insist that the setting must place Adam in a place where there are no shrubs and supposedly contrary to Genesis chapter one.
Again, the focus is on the creation of Adam and Eve.

Here is a breakdown:
2:1-3 Many commentators believe that these three verses should have been a part of chapter one, the conclusion of it. The chapter breaks are not inspired. They were added in much later on in history.
2:4-7, "These are the generations of the heaven and the earth." This is an introductory statement. What follows in this paragraph is a very brief summary of the entire first chapter. It can't possibly include everything, just some of the main points before it gets to the main subject matter in verse 8. There is nothing here that contradicts chapter one, or from 2:8 onward.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You can't pit one scripture against another scripture and expect you will come to a correct understanding of either scripture:.

Neither can you attempt to honestly approach scripture to make it fit your theology. Scripture just is

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Exactly, and it stands in stark contrast to Genesis 2. Note from a paper from Westminster Theologcial Journal

A coherent picture is emerging: there was no wild vegetation because there
was no rain, and there was no cultivated grain because there was no cultivator.

This is what the passage is getting at. So what does that indicate about the passage in Genesis 2? Its rather clear.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If the focus is on Adam, why do you insist that the setting must place Adam in a place where there are no shrubs and supposedly contrary to Genesis chapter one.
Again, the focus is on the creation of Adam and Eve.

Here is a breakdown:
2:1-3 Many commentators believe that these three verses should have been a part of chapter one, the conclusion of it. The chapter breaks are not inspired. They were added in much later on in history.
2:4-7, "These are the generations of the heaven and the earth." This is an introductory statement. What follows in this paragraph is a very brief summary of the entire first chapter. It can't possibly include everything, just some of the main points before it gets to the main subject matter in verse 8. There is nothing here that contradicts chapter one, or from 2:8 onward.

Or a third aspect. The creation account is not to be taken as you've taken it. Genesis 1 stands in stark contrast to Genesis 2

 

[DHK]

Or a third aspect. The creation account is not to be taken as you've taken it. Genesis 1 stands in stark contrast to Genesis 2

Then the Bible would contradict itself, which it doesn't.
Even as an unsaved person I never read it that way. I never even considered that possibility. It is an unnatural reading. It seems to get whatever meaning you want, you have to go to the higher critics first, study them, and then come back and say, "Oh yeah, I see what those unbelievers are trying to say." As an unbeliever I would never have thought of those ideas. And I certainly don't now.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Exactly, and it stands in stark contrast to Genesis 2.

You conveniently ignore the fact that this text can be easily interpreted within the framework of primary reproduction rather than initial creation. Also that it can be interpreted within the framework of farming rather than creation. To interpret it as initial creation is to repudiate day three where God says "and it was so" and that God "saw" it was good.

May I ask if have you any good reasons to reject either the account of day three or Genesis 2:5-7 as inclusive within the inspired original? Are there any extent copies that omit either?

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

The earth did not exist prior to the first day of creation. It was created on the first day of creation.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

'All that in them is' leaves nothing out whatsoever. Even the dirt was created within the six day period (the first day). One cannot say 'such and such existed prior to the six day creation period,' because Scripture declares everything that is in the earth, everything that is in the sea, and everything that is in heaven was created within those six days of creation. There is nothing older than dirt except God, His only begotten Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Are you absolutely sure that "Completion" is both the beginning and end of the Entire Creative Work... Or, could it be the completion of reforming the earth for Man?

All that in them is depends upon the grammar and where the Hebrew equivalent of a comma is at... It could as easily include only seas themselves, or the rcereated earth and the seas...

H6213
ָעָשׂה
‛āśāh: A verb meaning to do, to make, to accomplish, to complete. This frequently used Hebrew verb conveys the central notion of performing an activity with a distinct purpose, a moral obligation, or a goal in view (cf. Gen_11:6). Particularly, it was used in conjunction with God's commands (Deu_16:12). It described the process of construction (Gen_13:4; Job_9:9; Pro_8:26); engaging in warfare (Jos_11:18); the yielding of grain (Hos_8:7); observing a religious ceremony (Exo_31:16; Num_9:4); and the completion of something (Ezr_10:3; Isa_46:10). Provocatively, the word appears twice in Ezekiel to imply the intimate action of caressing or fondling the female breast (Eze_23:3, Eze_23:8).

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

That is not evidence of a gap. It is lack of evidence.

It is a lack of evidence for either hypothesis... It niether proves or disproves a gap...

In the end result... It does not make any difference as regards to God's Covenant with Man on this Planet...

 

[Robert Snow]

Your welcome. I also believe it "just a theory" a wrong one. However, you seem like a nice fella.

How do I print this; I want to show my wife! :laugh:

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

It is impossible to harmonize evolution with the Biblical account of creation regardless what kind of gap you invent to stick it into. It is equally impossible to harmonize a pre-adamic race, a pre-created and destroyed world, a pre-angelic fall with the Bible regardless of what "gap" you try to stick in. Scofield simply didn't do his homework.

You seem to assume that anyone who subscribes to the Gap Hypothesis (not theory as there is not enough evidence to elevate it to Scientific Theory) is also, at least, a Theistic Evolutionist.

This does not need to be the case.

In fact in many cases the opposite is true because a Gap would explain the fossil evidence as being pre-Adamic and probably part of satan's rebellion.

Also, consider the Biblical Evidence for Time standing still or even going backwards. Time has no meaning for God, it is only a convinient mathod for a finite mind to keep an organized track of what's going on around it.

 

[BobRyan]

For the sake of clarity - the discussion above is using a definition for "gap theory" that I do not believe in.

The only Gap I find is the one between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 where God created a perfect sinless death free heavens and earth (an overall statement of all that God did - creating the entire universe sinless and without death and disease) -- and then the Genesis 1:2 through 2:3 section where God gives specifics about our earth, our sun, our moon (the two great lights made on day 4) and all life on planet earth - made in a literal 7 day week where 6 days were used to create and the Gen 2:1-3 seventh-day was created and sanctified as the Sabbath day of rest for sinless mankind on a sinless perfect earth.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
God created the earth and all life on it - the Sun and the moon (two lights in the sky) in 6 literal days and rested the 7 th literal day "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord made..." Ex 20:11

God also - at some other time created the stars - but not on day 4.

in Christ,

Bob

But, was it "First Creation" or "Recreation"?

The earth existed prior to the Genesis record because for reason not shared with us it was void and without form.

Some people hypothesize that there was a pre-Genesis "creation" that was a part of satan's rebellion and that God wiped it our and recreated earth for Man...

At most the text would allow for God creating the earth without form and void with water covering the surface of the deep - at some prior point in time.

But there is no atmosphere - because this is not created until day 2. To insert the idea that dry land, atmosphere plants and animals were all created before the earth was found "Without form and void and water covering the surface of the deep" is to insert an entire chapter of planet-earth Genesis in that gap -- an insert that we cannot justify from the text itself.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by Fred's Wife
I agree!

Here's a short article I found on Kent Hovind's website blog:

The Gap Theory Denies the Purpose of the Cross

Dr. Kent Hovind
October 26th, 2010

Without a doubt, the foundation upon which our salvation and hope rests is the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross. God created a perfect, sinless earth and placed upon it a perfect, sinless man. This man, Adam, enjoyed close fellowship with his Creator until he sinned and broke the perfect relationship between God and man. Ever since that time, death and degradation have plagued God’s once-perfect creation, and man has been separated from God. However, the shedding of Christ’s innocent blood on the cross can restore man’s fellowship with God and provide him eternal life. Through Adam’s sin, death entered into the world; but through Christ’s sacrifice, salvation is made possible (Romans 5:19). Therein lies the gap theory’s greatest error, the placement of sin and death prior to the existence of Adam. If death existed prior to Adam’s sin, then how could it be the result of sin?

http://http://www.drdino.com/the-gap...ross/#comments

But, that would mean that satan's rebellion came after (Adamic) creation...

Because if satan's rebellion predates (Adamic) creation then sin most assuredly existed prior to Adam.

Granted we aren't given a lot to work with...

But, Salvation does not hinge on there being a "perfect" Earth before Adam...

It hinges on the creation of Man, and God's interaction with His creation.

Sin (the fall of the Angels) existed before Genesis 1:2 since Satan is clearly the "Snake" in Genesis 3. But this does not require a sinful earth.

Angels were not created on earth.

Angels were in heaven already at the time of Genesis 1:2 and 1/3 of the Angels were already in rebellion at the time the earth was being created in Genesis 1:2-2:3.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

You seem to assume that anyone who subscribes to the Gap Hypothesis (not theory as there is not enough evidence to elevate it to Scientific Theory) is also, at least, a Theistic Evolutionist.

This does not need to be the case.

In fact in many cases the opposite is true because a Gap would explain the fossil evidence as being pre-Adamic and probably part of satan's rebellion.

The evolutionist still does not have any accurate dating method. There is no way he can take into account all factors. Like Peter says:

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. (2 Peter 3:3-4)

The evolutionist, out of necessity, argues for uniformitarianism. The Bible says that uniformitarianism is not true, but false--that all things have not continued as they were from the beginning of the creation. Calculations cannot be made on the theory that a process is in a constant state of decay at exactly the same rate over thousands of years without any change in the rate of decay, without anything to stop or interfere with the rate of decay, etc. The scientist can only conjecture about the past, he cannot examine the past. The evolutionist does not take into consideration events like the flood which would have vastly altered his deductions concerning the age of fossils.

He can't take into consideration the very fact that God creates with an appearance of age. Adam looked more like a 30 year old man when he was one day old, rather than an one day old infant. There was an appearance of age in everything he created. He created the stars and the light from the stars at the same time. Even those astronomical deductions will be off.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by Dr. Walter in post #3
If the Bible is its own best interpreter (context) then these are six 24 hour days as this languauge "the evening and the morning" are never used in Scripture for anything other than a 24 hour day period.

It is true that Genesis 1 is the context and precidence for the term "evening and morning" - and shows that it is in fact a day.

Ex 20:8-11 make this point crystal clear "SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord made the heavens the earth the seas and all that is in them and rested the seventh day therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy".

Thus the Gen 1 "evening and morning - were one day" and "were the second day" and "were the third day" are real literal days.

It’s true the way it is constructed in Genesis is slightly different but of little consequence.
The point is that when “evening and morning” are used together it can indicate something other than 24 hours. So it’s time to drop this argument.

Tom Bryant noted [in post 16] that the verse alone doesn’t say the time was more than a day.

But if you read the context of the verse [all of Daniel 8] it is quite clear that the time mentioned is longer than a day.

A holy one (in Daniel 8:13) asks the question: “How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?”
(Daniel 8:13 AV 1873).
The answer is in verse 14.
Here the Authorized Version uncharacteristically breaks down a bit.

“And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.”
(Daniel 8:14, AV 1873)

The New American Standard Bible translates it:
“He said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the holy place will be properly restored.”
(Daniel 8:14, NAS)

[A simple Hebrew transliteration of the bolded phrase is: “erev boqer” = “evening morning”
So an even more literal translation could be… ‘For 2,300 evening morning; then the holy place will be properly restored.’

Anyway it is this time period that Daniel 8:26 calls “the evening and the morning”.

That is true - Dan 8 uses the same terms - but Daniel is using a day for a year model - as we see in Dan 9 with the 72 weeks. Therefore Daniel 8's 2300 days are in fact 2300 years.

But Genesis 1:2-2:3 is not talking about prophetic days - it is not a prophecy. Rather it is history.

History in the Bible is never given in the form of prophetic days.

Thus the Dan 9, Dan 8, Dan 7 model for day-for-year prophetic days cannot be inserted into Gen 1:2-2:3.

But if you DID do that insert - the most you could squeeze into Gen 1 would be 7 years instead of 7 days which is no help at all for evolutionism.

in Christ,

Bob