In the Beginning....

[Thinkingstuff]

I don't agree with Bob on many things but here he has it right and your responses to his arguments ring completely hollow.

The only reason they "ring hollow" to you is due to the fact you agree with him. He doesn't solve the problem of the correlation of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 with regard to plant life but to profit a theory where by plant life is taken for granted in Genesis 2 when clearly stylisticlly and word usage indicates a differing result to understanding of Genesis 2. Consider this

“It is evident that the Pentateuch cannot be the continuous work of a single author. This is shown by the existence of two differing accounts (doublets) of the same event: thus e.g. the story of the creation in Gen. 1 and 2:4ff...” (Weiser, 1961, pp. 72-73, emp. in orig.)

or

“The first account starts out with the creation of ‘heaven and earth’ (1:1). The present narrative begins with the making of ‘earth and heaven’ (2:4b)...“The first account starts out with the creation of ‘heaven and earth’ (1:1). The present narrative begins with the making of ‘earth and heaven’ (2:4b)

Also note

One distinctive feature of the stories is the names of the Creator God in each. The first refers to the Creator as God, or as Elohim (the plural majestic form of El) in Hebrew, while the second refers to the Creator as the LORD God, or YHWH, which is God's personal name in Hebrew. The first story does not use God's personal name.

and

For generations, serious students of Scripture have noted stark divisions and variations in the age of the Hebrew, its style and language within Genesis. As we have it now, Genesis is actually a composite of three written primary sources, each with its own character, favorite words and distinctly different names for God. Such differences all but evaporate when translated into English, but they are clear in the ancient Hebrew text...Many serious students of Scripture consider the first eleven chapters of Genesis as non-literal, pre-history type literature, with Abram in Genesis. 12:1 being the first literal historical figure in the Bible. This understanding of Genesis causes an uproar in some quarters. In most church communities, little of this textual study has filtered down to the pew. But, in their professional training, vast numbers of clergy have been exposed to this type of literary scriptural analysis.

So, I'm not alone in my supposition of the differing and contradictory views of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. In fact I suggest a larger segement of biblical scholars hold to this view I purport. What I was trying to address in all of this is a consern listed by one biblical scholar.

I have encountered many people who are unnecessarily conflicted because they have been made to believe that, to be faithfully religious, one must take a literal view of the Genesis creation accounts. Faced with their scientific understandings going one direction and their spiritual search another, many have felt compelled to give up their spiritual search altogether. This all too common reaction is an unnecessary shame!

To which I concur.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The only reason they "ring hollow" to you is due to the fact you agree with him. He doesn't solve the problem of the correlation of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 with regard to plant life but to profit a theory where by plant life is taken for granted in Genesis 2 when clearly stylisticlly and word usage indicates a differing result to understanding of Genesis 2. Consider this or Also note and So, I'm not alone in my supposition of the differing and contradictory views of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. In fact I suggest a larger segement of biblical scholars hold to this view I purport. What I was trying to address in all of this is a consern listed by one biblical scholar. To which I concur.

The only problem is the one you have created by your chosen interpretation. It is not a problem at all. I dare you to HONESTLY take Bob's argument as presented in its developmental form and refute it with any substantive arguments?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The only problem is the one you have created by your chosen interpretation. It is not a problem at all. I dare you to HONESTLY take Bob's argument as presented in its developmental form and refute it with any substantive arguments?

Very simple. Use your own basic rule. You will see that the words simply used and interpreted in Genesis chapter 2 are not related to the occurance in Genesis chapter 1. There is no indicator or an all ready vegitative state of grown plants. The terms NO plant, No scrub had appeared. If the author wanted to show show no reproduction they would have used the terms for flowering or renewal of the plants but that is not what we are getting. The catagory list all plants as either wild or cultivated type of plants. And neither were produced. Thus since all plants are catagorized in this method by the author no plants had yet appeared. Show me where in genesis 1 or 2 that there are more catagories for plants than wild or cultivated?

 

[DHK]

Very simple. Use your own basic rule. You will see that the words simply used and interpreted in Genesis chapter 2 are not related to the occurance in Genesis chapter 1.

Let’s examine chapter two and see if there is any contradiction.

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
--This is the conclusion of chapter one. It carries on in logical fashion from chapter one.

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
--Again, part of the conclusion of chapter one was that God rested on the seventh day, a logical progression into chapter two.

3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
--Again, the topic of the Sabbath day is a continuation of chapter one, not a different topic, but a continuation of chapter one. This in no way is a different creation but it continues from the previous chapter.

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
--Back up to verse one of this chapter and to the first chapter of chapter one—a summary of God’s creation to emphasize again the six days of creation after spending the former three verses emphasizing the seventh day of God ceasing from his creation—a logical progression.

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
--From the summary verse of 1:1 he goes on to verse two where he refers to the earth as being void. He omits the part of the Spirit moving on the face of the earth. He has already spoken of that.

6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
--In verse five he refers to no rain; in verse six he refers to a mist that would give moisture to the ground. Note that at this point no mention is made of any of the other days of creation for they have already been explained in detail in chapter one. He has referred to the initial summary of the creation and to the seventh day, and that is all. All of the individual days have been left out, for they have all been described in detail in chapter one. The focus is on the creation of man, for that has not been dealt in detail. Thus the attention is turned to that part of the sixth day where man was created.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Genesis 2:1-7)
--This is where the rest of the chapter begins is emphasis, and this is its main focus. The previous verses were simply a brief overview of what happened in chapter one, and didn’t even touch the specific days of creation. It referred to the very beginning of creation, and the very end—the Sabbath day, when God rested. All the details given in chapter one are omitted. There is no contradiction.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Very simple. Use your own basic rule. You will see that the words simply used and interpreted in Genesis chapter 2 are not related to the occurance in Genesis chapter 1.

How does this argue against bob's position? Indeed, his argument points that difference out to the advantage of his position against your position. He explicitly points out that the words are different just as my position hinges on a difference rather than sameness.

"Notice the text says that the earth "sprouted vegetation" complete with "plants yielding seed" this means - they appear in mature form on day 3. This word for vegetation in Gen 1 is not the word used in Gen 2 for what was not yet in the earth." - Bob

There is no indicator or an all ready vegitative state of grown plants.

You mean if you completely ignore Genesis 1:11-13 and buy your hypothesis of Genesis 2!!! However, if you take Genesis 1:11-13 not only for what it says but what it implicitly demands then Bob's interpretation of Genesis 2:5-7 fits like a glove.

A. The first point this new section makes is that there were four things that did not yet exist after God had completed the earth and the heavens:
1 - the shrub of the field (literally - thorny plants - weeds)
2. - the plant of the field (farm crops like wheat)
3. - rain
4. - the man to work the soil. (Gen 3:17 - man is cursed to work the soil after sin )

In Gen 2:9 we are told that man is eating fruit not wheat. Adam was not tilling the ground in Gen 2.

Weeds were not growing. Nor was man cursed as in Gen 3
18 ""Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field; - Bob

Show me where in genesis 1 or 2 that there are more catagories for plants than wild or cultivated?

Your quotation from Westminister used the terms "spontaneous" and "wild" to define what they intended. Obviously different than what you are intending.

There are a number of ways to deal with this passage. Dr. Albert Barnes makes this comment:

"Now, the plants were made before the seeds Genesis 1:11-12, and therefore the first full-grown and seed-bearing sets of each kind were already created. Hence, we infer that the state of things described in the text was this: The original trees were confined to a center of vegetation, from which it was intended that they should spread in the course of nature. At the present juncture, then, there was not a tree of the field, a tree of propagation, in the land; and even the created trees had not sent down a single root of growth into the land. And if they had dropped a seed, it was only on the land, and not in the land, as it had not yet struck root.

And not an herb of the field yet grew. - The herbage seems to have been more widely diffused than the trees. Hence, it is not said that they were not in the land, as it is said of field trees. But at the present moment not an herb had exhibited any signs of growth or sent forth a single blade beyond the immediate product of creative power.

Rain upon the land - and man to till it, were the two needs that retarded vegetation. These two means of promoting vegetable growth differed in their importance and in their mode of application. Moisture is absolutely necessary, and where it is supplied in abundance the shifting wind will in the course of time waft the seed. The browsing herds will aid in the same process of diffusion. Man comes in merely as an auxiliary to nature in preparing the soil and depositing the seeds and plants to the best advantage for rapid growth and abundant fruitfulness. The narrative, as usual, notes only the chief things. Rain is the only source of vegetable sap; man is the only intentional cultivator." - Albert Barnes


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Thinkingstuff]

How does this argue against bob's position? Indeed, his argument points that difference out to the advantage of his position against your position. He explicitly points out that the words are different just as my position hinges on a difference rather than sameness.

"Notice the text says that the earth "sprouted vegetation" complete with "plants yielding seed" this means - they appear in mature form on day 3. This word for vegetation in Gen 1 is not the word used in Gen 2 for what was not yet in the earth." - Bob






You mean if you completely ignore Genesis 1:11-13 and buy your hypothesis of Genesis 2!!! However, if you take Genesis 1:11-13 not only for what it says but what it implicitly demands then Bob's interpretation of Genesis 2:5-7 fits like a glove.

Genesis 1:11-13 is a seperate account than Genesis 2:5-7. The differing language is evidence of that. See what the problem is with trying to connect Genesis 1 to the Genesis 2 account is that the language in Genesis 2 does not account for any other vegitation or vegitation classification. To be correct more than these two classification of vegitation should be mentioned and and indicator that a "flowering" a term in hebrew has not occured. Which would give the impression of plants already fully grown. But as it is the language does not imply this in genesis two there for to connect the two stories you have to ignore word contruction as it is in Genesis 2. There will always be that question.

A. The first point this new section makes is that there were four things that did not yet exist after God had completed the earth and the heavens:
1 - the shrub of the field (literally - thorny plants - weeds)
2. - the plant of the field (farm crops like wheat)
3. - rain
4. - the man to work the soil. (Gen 3:17 - man is cursed to work the soil after sin )

The first two points sets up the problem the last two points profers the reason where by a solution is needed.

In Gen 2:9 we are told that man is eating fruit not wheat. Adam was not tilling the ground in Gen 2.

The problem with this passage is that there is a special insidence of Adam being in a special place a special garden away from the rest of the world from which he was taken. A sepcialized garden. There is no indicator that this type of thing was occuring else where. In fact its seems that this is a special perdicament which God has created. Thus this special place is cut off to man because of his sin and he must tansverse the world with out this special grace limited to the wild and cultivated plants of the earth. Thus bob takes a special significant issue (a singular garden in the east) where man is specially placed and experiences a special grace. This is not related to genesis 1 either.

Weeds were not growing. Nor was man cursed as in Gen 3

Note we don't know what was occuring in the "outside world" of the garden at that time.

18 ""Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field;

- Bob

And such is the result of being banished from the garden.

Your quotation from Westminister used the terms "spontaneous" and "wild" to define what they intended. Obviously different than what you are intending.

Both are the same and meaning is intent such as with the summerian creation account.

There are a number of ways to deal with this passage. Dr. Albert Barnes makes this comment:

"Now, the plants were made before the seeds Genesis 1:11-12, and therefore the first full-grown and seed-bearing sets of each kind were already created. Hence, we infer that the state of things described in the text was this: The original trees were confined to a center of vegetation, from which it was intended that they should spread in the course of nature. At the present juncture, then, there was not a tree of the field, a tree of propagation, in the land; and even the created trees had not sent down a single root of growth into the land. And if they had dropped a seed, it was only on the land, and not in the land, as it had not yet struck root.

And not an herb of the field yet grew. - The herbage seems to have been more widely diffused than the trees. Hence, it is not said that they were not in the land, as it is said of field trees. But at the present moment not an herb had exhibited any signs of growth or sent forth a single blade beyond the immediate product of creative power.

Rain upon the land - and man to till it, were the two needs that retarded vegetation. These two means of promoting vegetable growth differed in their importance and in their mode of application. Moisture is absolutely necessary, and where it is supplied in abundance the shifting wind will in the course of time waft the seed. The browsing herds will aid in the same process of diffusion. Man comes in merely as an auxiliary to nature in preparing the soil and depositing the seeds and plants to the best advantage for rapid growth and abundant fruitfulness. The narrative, as usual, notes only the chief things. Rain is the only source of vegetable sap; man is the only intentional cultivator." - Albert Barnes

Note the bolded which hinges his whole argument. He infers it and is not reliant on word contruction alone in the text but how he wants Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 to fit with each other.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Let’s examine chapter two and see if there is any contradiction.

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
--This is the conclusion of chapter one. It carries on in logical fashion from chapter one.

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
--Again, part of the conclusion of chapter one was that God rested on the seventh day, a logical progression into chapter two.

3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
--Again, the topic of the Sabbath day is a continuation of chapter one, not a different topic, but a continuation of chapter one. This in no way is a different creation but it continues from the previous chapter.

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Genesis one completes the creation why another intro statement unless another account?

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
--From the summary verse of 1:1 he goes on to verse two where he refers to the earth as being void. He omits the part of the Spirit moving on the face of the earth. He has already spoken of that.

Taken with this context

Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up,

This could not be because Man did not come along until day 6.

6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
--In verse five he refers to no rain; in verse six he refers to a mist that would give moisture to the ground. Note that at this point no mention is made of any of the other days of creation for they have already been explained in detail in chapter one. He has referred to the initial summary of the creation and to the seventh day, and that is all. All of the individual days have been left out, for they have all been described in detail in chapter one. The focus is on the creation of man, for that has not been dealt in detail. Thus the attention is turned to that part of the sixth day where man was created.

BTW are you tyring to argue plants can't grow on damp soil and mist? You've got an issue there. Remember these are ancient middle eastern peoples explaining something in their manner.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Genesis 2:1-7)
--This is where the rest of the chapter begins is emphasis, and this is its main focus. The previous verses were simply a brief overview of what happened in chapter one, and didn’t even touch the specific days of creation. It referred to the very beginning of creation, and the very end—the Sabbath day, when God rested. All the details given in chapter one are omitted. There is no contradiction.

The contradiction is Genesis 2 doesn't match Genesis 1. If it did it would read

5 Now amongst the varied folliage which had appeared on the earth and many plants had sprung up, for the LORD God had made them on the third day (Ref. Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land according to their various kinds"). Since God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground there was no flowering or plants made new, however, streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.

Yet this is not the way it reads.

 

[DHK]

Genesis one completes the creation why another intro statement unless another account?

Repetition is the mother of learning.
If you want a good example look at the last few verses of Exodus 31.
Exodus 31:12-18 emphasizes to Israel how the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant that God has made between Jehovah and Israel.
Twice in six verses he repeats to them that it is a sign.
Twice he mentions that it is not only for Israel but for their generations.
Three times in six verses is the command given keep the Sabbath.
--This is an example of repetition. It is used often.
How many times did our Lord tell the disciples that he was going to die and rise again, and still they did not get it? Repetition is the mother of learning. Nothing wrong with repetition.

Taken with this context

The context is simply descriptive. There were no shrubs. There was nothing. This was before the first day--the second verse, where there is an absence of all plant life. It is a good description.

This could not be because Man did not come along until day 6.

No shrub or plant had yet appeared. In the first three verses no shrub had been created. What is hard about that. There is no contradiction here. Man was created on day six after they were created. I don't follow your logic; in fact it is illogical.

BTW are you tyring to argue plants can't grow on damp soil and mist? You've got an issue there. Remember these are ancient middle eastern peoples explaining something in their manner.

No, if you read the account carefully, you will note that there was no rain until the flood came, approximately 2000 years later. All that time the earth was watered by a mist. This is how most greenhouses operate.

The contradiction is Genesis 2 doesn't match Genesis 1. If it did it would read Yet this is not the way it reads.

The contradiction is only in your mind. Does the Holy Spirit have to confine his vocabulary to what you think it ought to be?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Genesis one completes the creation why another intro statement unless another account?

Repetition is the mother of learning.
If you want a good example look at the last few verses of Exodus 31.
Exodus 31:12-18 emphasizes to Israel how the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant that God has made between Jehovah and Israel.
Twice in six verses he repeats to them that it is a sign.
Twice he mentions that it is not only for Israel but for their generations.
Three times in six verses is the command given keep the Sabbath.
--This is an example of repetition. It is used often.

I don't have a problem with repitition used as a memory technique. This is not what is going on with Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. We have divergent accounts of creation. Repitition would mean reciting the exact same thing several times. This is not what occures in Genesis 2 but a retainling together with a seperate intro.

How many times did our Lord tell the disciples that he was going to die and rise again, and still they did not get it? Repetition is the mother of learning. Nothing wrong with repetition.

He was clear. "I will die and on the third day rise up again." Not "I will die but before I do I will be lifted up."

The context is simply descriptive. There were no shrubs. There was nothing.

This is what I was saying. There was nothing yet its congruent with God making man. That is not how Genesis one reads. In Genesis one there were all sorts of plants, and trees already full grown. There were birds, and fish and animals. Then man was made.

This was before the first day--the second verse, where there is an absence of all plant life. It is a good description.

Yes this is what I've been saying.

No shrub or plant had yet appeared. In the first three verses no shrub had been created. What is hard about that. There is no contradiction here.

I agree save it doesn't agree with Genesis 1 account. Where 3 days before man there were all sorts of plants that appeared.

Man was created on day six after they were created. I don't follow your logic; in fact it is illogical

In Genesis 2 man was created when nothing was about. Which would mean God created man not on day 6 but on day 2 or possibly early on day 3. It doesn't match Genesis 1.

No, if you read the account carefully, you will note that there was no rain until the flood came, approximately 2000 years later. All that time the earth was watered by a mist. This is how most greenhouses operate.

Ok.

Does the Holy Spirit have to confine his vocabulary to what you think it ought to be?

The Holy Spirit communicates in a way I should understand and be internally consistent. Taking the Genesis account literally as you do it questions his consistency and adds error to the bible.

 

[DHK]

Genesis one completes the creation why another intro statement unless another account?

Because it is not another account. It is the same account, only in more detail about man.

I don't have a problem with repitition used as a memory technique. This is not what is going on with Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. We have divergent accounts of creation.

That is what the unbelieving "higher criticism" purports to say. There is no evidence, however of there being two accounts of creation. The theory has been refuted by evangelicals for decades. It is a wonder that these unbelieving theories are still around.

Repitition would mean reciting the exact same thing several times. This is not what occures in Genesis 2 but a retainling together with a seperate intro.

No it doesn't. In Mat. 5, Jesus says, "Ye have heard it said by them of old time 'ye shall not,'..." only about three times. In other words only three times out of ten does he refer to the ten commandments. Why not all ten?
In Mark 10 Jesus told the rich young ruler to keep the Ten Commandments but then only quoted six of them. Why would that be? Were the other four not important any more? Does repetitions mean saying the same thing exactly the same thing? Of course it doesn't. Not even the temptation in Luke 4 is repeated exactly the same way in Mark 4. It is told differently.

He was clear. "I will die and on the third day rise up again." Not "I will die but before I do I will be lifted up."

Yes he was clear; but he didn't always tell them the same thing in the same words as you claim repetition must do.

This is what I was saying. There was nothing yet its congruent with God making man. That is not how Genesis one reads. In Genesis one there were all sorts of plants, and trees already full grown. There were birds, and fish and animals. Then man was made.

Yes, no contradiction between the two accounts. Just because the second chapter jumps a few days does not mean there is any contradiction.

I agree save it doesn't agree with Genesis 1 account. Where 3 days before man there were all sorts of plants that appeared.

It does agree with the first chapter. You just don't want to believe it. Yes all sorts of plants appeared. Is it required for chapter two to give those details. Are you requiring that God write things your way. Do you command God? He is the author here; not you.

In Genesis 2 man was created when nothing was about. Which would mean God created man not on day 6 but on day 2 or possibly early on day 3. It doesn't match Genesis 1.

In chapter two Adam was created on Day 6. Just because it doesn't give that detail doesn't make it true. Just because chapter two doesn't mention the other days of creation, doesn't mean they didn't happen.

The Holy Spirit communicates in a way I should understand and be internally consistent.

Then you have become the boss of God. You tell him how to write now. Do I report to you or God now?

Taking the Genesis account literally as you do it questions his consistency and adds error to the bible.

It is either your error or God's error. I happen to believe God and conclude that it is your error.

Truthfully, look at the facts that you have given. If you had read the passage objectively without bias you would have never come to conclusions that you did. But you didn't do that. You read it with a great bias, the bias of unbelievers. How do I know that?
You knew that in chapter one that Elohim was the word used for God.
You knew that in chapter two that Jehovah was the word used for God.
You suggested that there was more than one author for the book.
You suggested that the styles of writing between the two chapters was different.

No one would come to these conclusions unless they had read them, studied them, or had been previously taught them. Thus you had already come to Genesis with a bias--a bias formed by unbelievers that want nothing more than to discredit the Bible and deny its inspiration. Higher Criticism, the JEDP theory, these unbelieving liberals who deny the supernatural, the miracles of the Bible are the ones that you are following, the theories that they are putting forth. Their theories have time and again have been aptly refuted by such men as Gleason Archer in his book "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction." He deals with this subject extensively.
Your problem is one of belief.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

Question --- if the sun and the moon were not created until the fourth day, then how were days one through three determined? Just wondering...

 

[BobRyan]

I would like to highlight a few points that help resolve the issues for Gen 2.

1. There is only ONE Chronological sequence given and that is found in Gen 1:2-2:3. There is NO chronological time sequence given in Gen 2:4-the-end.

Some people have imagined that there are TWO conflicting ones - and then using circular reasoning argue that we should not notice how the Genesis 2 details fit in with Gen 1 since the two are conflicting.

2. The word for SHRUB in Gen 2 is not tree. It is the word used for dry desert thorny plant. Thorns!

3. The vegetation in Gen 1 has no boundary limits. The text does not say "just let the Garden of Eden sprout vegetation". So the context for Gen 2 is that the entire earth is covered with vegetation to the point of plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them''

4. in Gen 2 Adam is specifically supposed to tend the Garden "to cultivate and keep it". This work in the Garden orchard (they ate fruit from trees) was very different from the cursed work of Gen 3:17-18.

ThinkingStuff quotes Westminster-T.J


Gen 1:2-2:3 is a chronological sequence (strict timeline) with explicit time-boxed units (evening and morning - one day).

Gene 2:4-25 is not a chronological sequence. Rather it is a narrative that provides details that have to be inserted into their right sequence as per the already given chronological sequence.

On Day 3 - God creates Plants and those plants actually grow.

11 Then God said, ""Let the earth sprout vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them''; and it was so.
12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

Notice the text says that the earth "sprouted vegetation" complete with "plants yielding seed" this means - they appear in mature form on day 3. This word for vegetation in Gen 1 is not the word used in Gen 2 for what was not yet in the earth.

Hint: There is no text for day 5 and 6 saying "And God created animals - and they starved for there was no plant to eat".

So What does the Gen 2 text actually say?

KJV

5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.


A. The first point this new section makes is that there were four things that did not yet exist after God had completed the earth and the heavens:
1 - the shrub of the field (literally - thorny plants - weeds)
2. - the plant of the field (farm crops like wheat)
3. - rain
4. - the man to work the soil. (Gen 3:17 - man is cursed to work the soil after sin )

In Gen 2:9 we are told that man is eating fruit not wheat. Adam was not tilling the ground in Gen 2.

Weeds were not growing. Nor was man cursed as in Gen 3
18 ""Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field;

And there was no rain.

In fact there is no mention of Rain at all until Gen 7.

 

[BobRyan]

Question --- if the sun and the moon were not created until the fourth day, then how were days one through three determined? Just wondering...

On day 1 God said "let there be light" and "Evening and mornig were the first day".

From that statement alone we know that the light source was only on one side of the earth AND we know that the planet was rotating from day 1.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Genesis 1:11-13 is a seperate account than Genesis 2:5-7. The differing language is evidence of that.

That is mere speculation it is not proof of anything. But the actual information content "in the text" shows that Gen 1:2-2:3 forms a single contiguous chronological timeline that we do not get in Gen 2:4-25

TS said
See what the problem is with trying to connect Genesis 1 to the Genesis 2 account is that the language in Genesis 2 does not account for any other vegitation or vegitation classification.

Gen 2 does not say "there was no vegetation".
Gen 2 says there were no thorns and there were no cultivated plants like fields of grain - there was no one cultivating the ground.

Gen 3 says that this would be a part of the curse.

Gen 1 says that the entire planet was covered in vegetation that included trees bearing fruit.

TS said
To be correct more than these two classification of vegitation should be mentioned and and indicator that a "flowering" a term in hebrew has not occured.

Only if the effort is to try and repeat in Gen 2 what you already have in Gen 1. Which is not the point of the text.

Gen 2 is stating that there are no weeds and not cultivated plants.

Gen 1 is saying there is a planet load of vegetation that already had seeds and Trees that already had fruit.

TS said -
The problem with this passage is that there is a special insidence of Adam being in a special place a special garden away from the rest of the world from which he was taken. A sepcialized garden. There is no indicator that this type of thing was occuring else where. In fact its seems that this is a special perdicament which God has created.

The text does specifiy the Garden of Eden as a special environment. And as part of the curse Adam and Eve were forced to leave it. But the text of Gen 3 is very explicit in stating that THE dissadvantage to NOT being in the Garden - was "no access to the Tree of Life".

It does not say that all the fruit trees, and the plants yielding seed mentioned as covering the earth in Gen 1 - had dissappeared. Only that man would need to cultivate the ground eat grains (eat bread) fight weeds etc.

TS said -
Thus bob takes a special significant issue (a singular garden in the east) where man is specially placed and experiences a special grace. This is not related to genesis 1 either.

I stated that Gen 2 is ADDING details that Gen 1 does not contain and relies on the reader being able to "flip the page" so to speak, and remember what they just read one page ago.

Details given in Gen 2 and NOT in Gen 1 include the forming from the dust of the ground, the taking of the rib from Adam's side, Marriage, the "rule" about the Tree of knowledge, the existence of the Tree of Life etc. Telling us that there was a Garden, no rain, no thorns, no cultivated plants and telling us that mankind ate fruit from trees as their diet.

Gen 2 is adding details INSTEAD of repeating the details of Gen 1.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[percho]

On day 1 God said "let there be light" and "Evening and mornig were the first day".

From that statement alone we know that the light source was only on one side of the earth AND we know that the planet was rotating from day 1.

in Christ,

Bob

I don't know it was rotating. I believe God's return presence to a place he had turned his back on is the light. I think on the fourth day when God positioned the planets and stars and moons is when the earth started to rotate.

I also think there is a whole lot we don't know. Methinks more we don't than we do.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Because it is not another account. It is the same account, only in more detail about man.

The word usage and stylistic account tell a different story to your view.

That is what the unbelieving "higher criticism" purports to say. There is no evidence, however of there being two accounts of creation. The theory has been refuted by evangelicals for decades. It is a wonder that these unbelieving theories are still around.

Unlike you. I believe Higher Criticism has a significant place in biblical studies. God has no fear of Higher Criticism because the Truth just is. People who fear science, education, etc... do so because it calls into question their belief system. A Belief System if proven wrong questions their life decisions. Such a system of belief hanging by such a limited thread that is so desparate to be maintained if offended by facts and truth is not worthy of the person who believes it. Of course certain (not all mind you) evangelicals have attempted to refute it to defend their fledgling beliefs and not considering being open to accute study. However, as clever as their arguments may be there is no "slam dunk" so to speak. There is significant evidence that the creation account may be taken otherwise which would not contradict scientific data or evidence of a much older earth.

No it doesn't. In Mat. 5, Jesus says, "Ye have heard it said by them of old time 'ye shall not,'..." only about three times. In other words only three times out of ten does he refer to the ten commandments. Why not all ten?
In Mark 10 Jesus told the rich young ruler to keep the Ten Commandments but then only quoted six of them. Why would that be? Were the other four not important any more? Does repetitions mean saying the same thing exactly the same thing? Of course it doesn't. Not even the temptation in Luke 4 is repeated exactly the same way in Mark 4. It is told differently.

this passage is a bit irrelevant. You don't see Jesus providing another 10 commandment list either. He simplifies it but doesn't provide a different list. Nor does he attempt to reorder the list either.

Yes, no contradiction between the two accounts. Just because the second chapter jumps a few days does not mean there is any contradiction.

No the point is that there is no indication of plants in either catagory of wild or cultivated (and note grains aren't the only cultivated plants orchards and fruit trees are as well) which if you read early summerian texts is how all plant life is catagorized is in existance. Genesis 1 says they were existant and everywhere 3 days before man was created. In Genesis 2 Man is made congruently when there are no plants upon the earth.

It does agree with the first chapter. You just don't want to believe it.

I Personally would like nothing more than evidence of 7,000 year old earth and scientific evidence of a universe not older than that. However, science data. Higher Criticism, Knowldege of Middle eastern literature, Ancient views, etc... provide compelling evidence to the contrary. I have no fear of truth. If the universe is closer to 14 billion years old my faith in God or the bible is not diminished. I fear for those who tied themselves so hard to one view that when the final "slam dunk" evidence appears how will they cope. Will they loose their faith? I know many who have had their faith challenged by scientific data and have left the faith because they have this attitude you purport of Either/ Or. Either you believe in a literal 6 day creation account or you are not a christian. And when they find factual data that disagrees with their view of creation they believe because of this senario played out in so many churches they aren't christians and must be agnostic. I find that a shame.

Do you command God? He is the author here; not you.

According to tradition the author is Moses who was inspired by God. Thus by using Moses I can easily critic his work. Unlike, if God handed them down by golden tablets.

It is either your error or God's error. I happen to believe God and conclude that it is your error.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You've created a senario of either/or. Not giving God the true Dominion to mean and express himself in whatever way he sees fit that doesn't agree with your personal theological outline or matrix.

Truthfully, look at the facts that you have given. If you had read the passage objectively without bias you would have never come to conclusions that you did. But you didn't do that. You read it with a great bias, the bias of unbelievers. How do I know that?

Actually, reading the bible with out bias is what made hold a view closer to Higher Criticism. When I was first saved I was young and in a missionary boarding school. I held to the fundalmental view of a literal creation account for many years arguing as you do against "liberal" views. However, many years after highschool and after getting out of the military I started asking the questions that filled my head as I just approached the bible openly and without bias. And many of the answers given by people who held my persuasion seemed shallow and incomplete. As I got more into it and studied with bible professors in several different universities I came to a differing conclusion which is what I express here.

You knew that in chapter one that Elohim was the word used for God.
You knew that in chapter two that Jehovah was the word used for God.
You suggested that there was more than one author for the book.
You suggested that the styles of writing between the two chapters was different.

Yes I did and isn't it interesting I got this stuff in university and by many other works of biblical scholars who studied this stuff for years? While when I was a teenager with limited education I easily held the other view?

No one would come to these conclusions unless they had read them, studied them, or had been previously taught them.

Yes. The key is studied them. Aren't we supposed to study and emmerse ourselves in the word to "make ourselves and approved workman?" You're not one of those many preachers I've seen in Northern Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, and Kentucky that blame everything on education. Especially the decline of the Christian faith are you?

Their theories have time and again have been aptly refuted by such men as Gleason Archer in his book "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction." He deals with this subject extensively.

I have Archer's works and his Encyclopedia on Bible difficulties. I like his work and he makes some valid points and others not so valid. He's certainly bias however.

Your problem is one of belief.

My problem (if you can call it that) is an openess to truth.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

In your attempt to combine 1 and 2 and have two as a planned continuation to 1 though word usage and stylistic writings are different God is even referred to differently; there are things you have not considered.

The dominant religious threat for pre-exilic Israel was Baalism. “The
agrarian peoples of the ancient Middle East were acutely aware of the most basic
equation: water = life.” So water played a major role in the theologies of ancient
Near Eastern peoples. Canaan, however, was not like Egypt or Mesopotamia,
where agriculture was based on irrigation from rivers. Canaan was a land where agriculture was dependent on rain,

Note that Genesis through Kings shows the

struggle against Baalism

thus

As the Israelites settled in Canaan,
they were tempted to ask their Canaanite neighbors, “How does your garden grow?” Such inquiry was seen by later writers as having led to eventual apostasy and exile as Israel became idolatrous and eventually drowned in Baalism.

Is clearly in mind in the writing of the Genesis account. thus we see that

The polemic against Baalism is at the heart of OT covenant theology.

With this in mind taking the Pentatuch in overall context within its writing. When God is speaking in Deut 11

then I will send rain on your land in its season, both autumn
and spring rains, so that you may gather in your grain, new wine and oil. I will provide grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will eat and be satisfied

we can see how the rain effets both wild and cultivated plant life and how the wild plant life extends to beyond just "thorns" and weeds but grass that feeds the cows and Olive trees that provide the oils etc... And it works this way for the Hebrews because of the nature of the land. Thus a hebrew reader would understand Genesis two account to be a Polemic of a an issue that places man as God's cultivator of the earth. Thus there was no shrubs and no plants are literary devices showing the need of God's rain and man's cultivation. Just like the 6 days of creation are literary divices organizing creation in showing that God is God above all other things or gods (a polemic for monothesism) and provide a foundation for a polemic for Sabath theology incerted in the story. These are literary divices that must be in full view of over all torah or pentatuch. Genesis is viewed from this manner not to prove in your view a young earth .

 

[Dr. Walter]

Scientific Evidence against BILLIONS of years and evidence for a YOUNG earth can be found documented at the following web address:

http://dsclick.infospace.com/ClickH...7&app=1&hash=5DB976441B6D40E2D711FE05CA18CB0E

The word usage and stylistic account tell a different story to your view.



I Personally would like nothing more than evidence of 7,000 year old earth and scientific evidence of a universe not older than that. However, science data. Higher Criticism, QUOTE]


Such evidence has been documented and provided by several scientists. Dr. John D. Morris presents much of it in his book, "The Young Earth." There are a group of well known scientists that worked together for eight years on this subject and presented documented evidence for a young earth that you can purchase on DVD from your nearest Christian book store or from Creation Research Institute called, "RATE."

I personally don't believe any amount of evidence will change your mind.

 

[DHK]

The word usage and stylistic account tell a different story to your view.[/quote[
No, same story; different emphasis. The emphasis on chapter two is on the creation of Adam and Eve. There is no contradiction between chapter one and two.

Unlike you. I believe Higher Criticism has a significant place in biblical studies. God has no fear of Higher Criticism because the Truth just is.

You sound like the follower of a well known new age cult leader. He claims to be "The Truth." He also claims to be a reincarnation of Christ. "The Truth is." That is one of his statements. He is. He is what? "The Truth." And people follow him because of that. He is a New Age "prophet."

http://www.johnderuiter.com/

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/14338/john-de-ruiter-shoemaker-to-messiah

The Truth??

Higher Criticism is a pack of lies that attacks the inspiration of the Bible, and has nothing to do with truth.

People who fear science, education, etc... do so because it calls into question their belief system.

Do I fear education? I have 8 years of post-secondary education (including a graduate degree in Biology) and have been teaching in a college for 30 years. What about you?

A Belief System if proven wrong questions their life decisions.

The trouble here is that your belief system is the one that has been challenged, and you haven't provided any adequate answers. You have not convinced anyone that your system is right. It is your belief system that is on trial here, not others. Did you take a look at the poll recently?

Such a system of belief hanging by such a limited thread that is so desparate to be maintained if offended by facts and truth is not worthy of the person who believes it. Of course certain (not all mind you) evangelicals have attempted to refute it to defend their fledgling beliefs and not considering being open to accute study.

The creation model does not hang by a limited thread. That is why the governments of many states declare that it must be taught with equal status to evolution. There are no facts that deny the truth of creation, but the most basic facts deny evolution:
1. The first law of Thermodynamics.
2. The second law of Thermodynamics.
3. The law of biogenesis.
4. It goes beyond the scientific method, and transcends the limitations of science putting itself in the realm of the meataphysical where science does not belong.

However, as clever as their arguments may be there is no "slam dunk" so to speak. There is significant evidence that the creation account may be taken otherwise which would not contradict scientific data or evidence of a much older earth.

Older than 10,000 years? What significant evidence?

this passage is a bit irrelevant. You don't see Jesus providing another 10 commandment list either. He simplifies it but doesn't provide a different list. Nor does he attempt to reorder the list either.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
You argue that the "repetition" must be exactly the same or it is not repetition. That is the argument that you put forth. When I show you that that is not the case in the NT, you say that it is not relevant, when Christ does exactly the same thing with the Ten Commandments as Moses does with the days of Creation. Your approach to Scripture has now become hypocritical.

No the point is that there is no indication of plants in either catagory of wild or cultivated (and note grains aren't the only cultivated plants orchards and fruit trees are as well) which if you read early summerian texts is how all plant life is catagorized is in existance.

There are no cultivated plants in either account. Bob pointed that out for you. God spoke them into existence. He spoke and it was done. There was no man to cultivate plants on any of the first five days.

Genesis 1 says they were existant and everywhere 3 days before man was created. In Genesis 2 Man is made congruently when there are no plants upon the earth.

Plants existed three days before man. What contradiction is there? Do you mean to say that plants can't grow and exist for three days without the intervention of man? Ridiculous. They certainly do around my house.
In Genesis two man is not made congruently with plants. You are reading that into the text. You don't allow for gaps of time to pass. Moses didn't have to repeat everything that he had already said in chapter one. Why should he? He wasn't writing according to the dictates of TS.

I Personally would like nothing more than evidence of 7,000 year old earth and scientific evidence of a universe not older than that.

Seek and ye shall find. Start reading the right books.

However, science data. Higher Criticism, Knowldege of Middle eastern literature, Ancient views, etc... provide compelling evidence to the contrary.

Books attacking the Bible will always provide answers to the contrary. What do you expect from unbelievers. It is not science, but scientism.

I have no fear of truth.

You act like you do; you don't want to believe it.

If the universe is closer to 14 billion years old my faith in God or the bible is not diminished. I fear for those who tied themselves so hard to one view that when the final "slam dunk" evidence appears how will they cope. Will they loose their faith? I know many who have had their faith challenged by scientific data and have left the faith because they have this attitude you purport of Either/ Or. Either you believe in a literal 6 day creation account or you are not a christian.

This is a ridiculous statement and a red herring that has nothing to do with this discussion.
Both Dr. Bob Jones Sr. and Dr. Bob Jones Jr. believed in the Gap Theory. I don't condemn either one as not being a Christian and neither does anyone else. Neither do I believe that they doubted their salvation because they had a different view of creation. There are many on this board who have a different view of creation and don't doubt their salvation. This red herring of your has nothing to do with the topic. It only means that they have not studied this topic out enough to find out the truth that is contained in Genesis chapter one.

And when they find factual data that disagrees with their view of creation they believe because of this senario played out in so many churches they aren't christians and must be agnostic.

non sequitor.

I find that a shame.

I find it a shame that you should even bring up such garbage.

According to tradition the author is Moses who was inspired by God. Thus by using Moses I can easily critic his work. Unlike, if God handed them down by golden tablets.

Now you contradict yourself. On the one hand you admit you believe in higher criticism. On the other hand you believe the author is Moses. Higher criticism believes that there were many authors, but the conservative evangelical view maintains that only Moses wrote the first five books, as Jesus also testified to.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You've created a senario of either/or. Not giving God the true Dominion to mean and express himself in whatever way he sees fit that doesn't agree with your personal theological outline or matrix.

But you are not believing God when you are believing Higher Criticism. These people are unbelievers whose sole aim is discrediting the Bible. You can't believe both. How is that possible? To deny the supernatural, the inspiration of the Bible, the miracles of the Bible, and even the very words of Jesus, and still claim to be a believer in Christ. You can't do it. You are right. It is either/or scenario. You can't do both. Higher Criticism has created this either/or scenario. not me.

 

[DHK]

Actually, reading the bible with out bias is what made hold a view closer to Higher Criticism. When I was first saved I was young and in a missionary boarding school. I held to the fundalmental view of a literal creation account for many years arguing as you do against "liberal" views. However, many years after highschool and after getting out of the military I started asking the questions that filled my head as I just approached the bible openly and without bias. And many of the answers given by people who held my persuasion seemed shallow and incomplete.

So they weren't as educated in the Bible as they should have been. Do you fault them for that? Do you blame your unbelief on the people you asked who didn't have complete answers when you should have gone to those who had more education instead of unbelieving liberals.

As I got more into it and studied with bible professors in several different universities I came to a differing conclusion which is what I express here.

Which are the views of an unbeliever.

Yes I did and isn't it interesting I got this stuff in university and by many other works of biblical scholars who studied this stuff for years? While when I was a teenager with limited education I easily held the other view?

Which university? A secular university; a liberal university? Not an evangelical university was it? I would rather have a limited education in the truth than an expanded education in error and in unbelief.

Yes. The key is studied them. Aren't we supposed to study and emmerse ourselves in the word to "make ourselves and approved workman?"

But you didn't do that did you? You immersed yourself (by your own admission) into unbelieving men's philosophies. You would not have come tho these conclusions on your own. They are false ideas promoted by men who want to destroy the integrity of the Bible. They have a wicked agenda.

I have Archer's works and his Encyclopedia on Bible difficulties. I like his work and he makes some valid points and others not so valid. He's certainly bias however.

His bias is toward the truth. I could give you a dozen other scholars who come to the same conclusions as he does.

My problem (if you can call it that) is an openess to truth.

No you did not open yourself to the truth; you opened yourself up to falsehood. And that is a pity.