How Do Thestic Evolutionist Chrsitians Account for man and species transformation?

[Luke2427]

Then maybe I misunderstood you...I saw this:

Which isn't you "calling" YEC's stupid........per se...it's until you say this:
.
Now...I'm a dumb "YEC" and what-not....but if (as you say) "intelligent" people want nothing to do with "them" (that would be YEC'S)....then forgive me for not seeing how that isn't simply an insult to the intelligence of all YEC's.

I guess I'll have to forgive you for not seeing it, but I can hardly see how you could miss it.

YEC is no more taught by the Bible than geocentricity. Now, before Galileo, one could be a geocentric Christian and be a pure genius. He had only the information available to him at the time to come to certain conclusions.

But today, geocentricity is utterly laughable. Why? Because as more and more information came out to prove heliocentricity, those who stubbornly clung to geocentricity looked more and more ignorant.

Fifty years after Galileo died, you might could understand some people holding on cautiously to geocentricity. 400 years later when people still cling to it you just have to say- well these people are morons.

Intelligent unbelievers cannot bring themselves to attend snake handler churches. They just can't.

The longer people cling to YEC as more and more facts reveal the universe to be very old the more on par with snake handlers they become in the eyes of intelligent people.

Now, we may not be there yet. It may not be utterly ridiculous to hang on to YEC just yet. But it is getting there fast.

But for the time being there are still people who are very intelligent who cling to YEC. They do so, in my opinion, for emotional, not exegetical reasons. But they are not necessarily dumb to do so- not yet any way.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Right. It is interesting that scientists now tell us that the vast majority of dust in our homes is "us". Dust on the mantle consists of dead skin cells.

Duh, they've told us that for about the last 30 years at least....what's new? Hey, I score a whole new outer skin every 30 days (so do you).......it says nothing about this discussion.

We are dust. We are made of dust. Not just us.

Yes.

God formed every living creature from out of the ground.

Not according to the Scriptures:
According to them, the birds and the fishes were brought forth from the waters. Here's the Bible:

Gen 1:20 ¶ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
The problem with non YEC's....is that they usually haven't REALLY read the Scriptures closely. Usually, there's something OBVIOUSLY and CRITICALLY wrong with their very understanding of Genesis.......
You're just wrong Luke; read Genesis again...it isn't as imprecise and stupid as you might think, it's VERY specific.

The Bible is PERFECTLY scientifically accurate

Yes, it is......and the fish and the fowl came from the "waters" and the "beasts" and the man and the "creeping things" (and also the 'cattle') came from the "Earth".

Read Genesis again.

 

[Luke2427]

What recent facts refute the concept of the Big Bang? In fact, the "idea of the Big Bang" did a great deal to bolster and support the theism that you and I cherish.

That's exactly right. It substantiated the claim that the universe had a beginning and that matter was not eternal.

These are two huge Christian claims that the Big Bang Theory substantiates over against old atheism which claimed the contrary.

 

[Luke2427]

Duh, they've told us that for about the last 30 years at least....what's new? Hey, I score a whole new outer skin every 30 days (so do you).......it says nothing about this discussion.

Yes.

Not according to the Scriptures:
According to them, the birds and the fishes were brought forth from the waters. Here's the Bible:

Gen 1:20 ¶ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
The problem with non YEC's....is that they usually haven't REALLY read the Scriptures closely. Usually, there's something OBVIOUSLY and CRITICALLY wrong with their very understanding of Genesis.......
You're just wrong Luke; read Genesis again...it isn't as imprecise and stupid as you might think, it's VERY specific.

Yes, it is......and the fish and the fowl came from the "waters" and the "beasts" and the man and the "creeping things" (and also the 'cattle') came from the "Earth".

Read Genesis again.

Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. Genesis 2:19

Yea, really close...

 

[Inspector Javert]

Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. Genesis 2:19

Yea, really close...

Don't roll your eyes at me Luke...you don't understand how Genesis is written. Here's where you erred:
What you haven't accounted for is the context of chapter 2 of Genesis:

Gen 2:1 ¶ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. (that's the end of the account).

Now...you then ignored 18 verses to get to where you are............here's the critical verse PRECEDING it!
Gen 2:8 ¶ And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD <---that's what you're insisting on....

Again...you don't REALLY understand the book of Genesis, you think you do, but it's imprecise and random and repetitive in your mind....you don't understand how EXTREMELY SPECIFIC the accounts are. They're PRECISE. They mean what they say.

God made all beasts to come out of the ground (one copy each) ONLY IN THE GARDEN!!!!

Here's what happened:
1.) God created everything and ended the account in

Gen 2:1 ¶ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished
He goes on further to explain his actions to man in the Garden specifically:
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow
God is creating the "Heavens and the Earth" in chapter 1....and he is describing what he did in the garden in chapter 2.

Genesis is separated clearly by "Toledoth's"[/U....]U]Toledoth's" are these phrases:
Gen 2:4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth

A phrase in Genesis that "these are the Generations of"...is a "Toledoth"...which is the end of an accounting...there are numerous times it's used in Genesis to properly understand it, and here they are:
Gen 2:4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth

What you are quoting is chapter 2:19

Gen 6:9 ¶ These are the generations of Noah:
Gen 10:1 ¶ Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah,
Gen 11:10 ¶ These are the generations of Shem:
Gen 11:27 ¶ Now these are the generations of Terah:
Gen 25:12 ¶ Now these are the generations of Ishmael,
Gen 25:19 ¶ And these are the generations of Isaac, Abraham's son:
Gen 36:9 ¶ And these are the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites
Gen 37:2 These are the generations of Jacob.


My contention is absolutely correct....

Your error is that you don't understand the book of Genesis. You don't really understand what was written.

I hold my initial contention still. Those who seek to insist that YEC is un-biblical.....simply don't understand the book of Genesis, or haven't read it clearly. You apparently do not.

 

[Luke2427]

Don't roll your eyes at me Luke...you don't understand how Genesis is written. Here's where you erred:
What you haven't accounted for is the context of chapter 2 of Genesis:

Gen 2:1 ¶ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. (that's the end of the account).

Now...you then ignored 18 verses to get to where you are............here's the critical verse PRECEDING it!
Gen 2:8 ¶ And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD <---that's what you're insisting on....

Again...you don't REALLY understand the book of Genesis, you think you do, but it's imprecise and random and repetitive in your mind....you don't understand how EXTREMELY SPECIFIC the accounts are. They're PRECISE. They mean what they say.

God made all beasts to come out of the ground (one copy each) ONLY IN THE GARDEN!!!!

Here's what happened:
1.) God created everything and ended the account in

Gen 2:1 ¶ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished
He goes on further to explain his actions to man in the Garden specifically:
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow
God is creating the "Heavens and the Earth" in chapter 1....and he is describing what he did in the garden in chapter 2.

Genesis is separated clearly by "Toledoth's"[/U....]U]Toledoth's" are these phrases:
Gen 2:4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth

A phrase in Genesis that "these are the Generations of"...is a "Toledoth"...which is the end of an accounting...there are numerous times it's used in Genesis to properly understand it, and here they are:
Gen 2:4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth

What you are quoting is chapter 2:19

Gen 6:9 ¶ These are the generations of Noah:
Gen 10:1 ¶ Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah,
Gen 11:10 ¶ These are the generations of Shem:
Gen 11:27 ¶ Now these are the generations of Terah:
Gen 25:12 ¶ Now these are the generations of Ishmael,
Gen 25:19 ¶ And these are the generations of Isaac, Abraham's son:
Gen 36:9 ¶ And these are the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites
Gen 37:2 These are the generations of Jacob.


My contention is absolutely correct....

Your error is that you don't understand the book of Genesis. You don't really understand what was written.

I hold my initial contention still. Those who seek to insist that YEC is un-biblical.....simply don't understand the book of Genesis, or haven't read it clearly. You apparently do not.

You have GOT to be kidding!!!

The Bible says in NO uncertain terms that God FORMED...

Got that? FORMED..

FORMED...

the birds from the ground.

God formed the birds from the ground.

All this lengthy mess above of yours is nothing more than a desperate attempt to save face after you were made to look like a fool.

God formed the birds out of the ground. That's what the Bible teaches.

You think Genesis 1:20 identifies how God FORMED them. It doesn't. It just speaks of where they come from not what they were made out of.

Evolutionary scientists agree that living breathing creatures began in the sea. They were formed, obviously, from the soil in the sea bed.

It is not a dichotomy to say that birds came forth from the sea and were made of soil.

 

[quantumfaith]

I would also ask you to observe that the "earth" was engineered to bring forth life. God commanded the seas and the land to bring forth life....and it did. The elements of life were engineered into our planet by our God and it obeyed His dictates to "bring forth life".

 

[quantumfaith]

http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf

 

[Inspector Javert]

You have GOT to be kidding!!!

The Bible says in NO uncertain terms that God FORMED...

Got that? FORMED..

FORMED...

the birds from the ground.

God formed the birds from the ground.

Yes, he did this in the Garden of Eden, after the initial creative act specified in Genesis 1.........where he "created" not "formed" them. In Genesis 1...He "CREATED" (that's bara)........ in chapter 2, only in the garden he "formed" from pre-existing material. I am FULLY aware of the difference in verbiage. In Genesis 1 he created them...in Genesis 2 he formed from existent matter......You have no point.

All this lengthy mess above of yours is nothing more than a desperate attempt to save face after you were made to look like a fool.

NO...this "lengthy mess" is me explaining to you that what you have read in Genesis 2 is something specific to the garden ONLY, not the initial creative act. The Genesis 1 account back-straps the creation of the birds to the account of creating the fish........no such luck in chapter 2.

You may imagine that I am looking a "fool", but you clearly don't understand the account.
In Genesis 2 God is forming all manner of animals in front of Adam who is already now created and placed IN THE GARDEN

Here's the chronology and note the addresses:
Gen 2:15
¶And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Now your verse about forming <---- (which was pointles to harp on)the birds from the ground:
Gen 2:19
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Your M.O. seems to be to simply casually insult and then dismiss whole-sale any person when they bring up arguments they don't like. That's not meaningful.

You think Genesis 1:20 identifies how God FORMED them. It doesn't. It just speaks of where they come from not what they were made out of.

No, I think you are off-base bantering about what God did uniquely in the garden as a post-creative event. In Genesis 1 God says:
Gen 1:20
¶And God said, Let the waters bring forth
Now, if you want to insist that it was of the mineral and earth content FROM the oceans then, fine....o.k. that's one thing, but that's not what you are doing, you are mistaking the act in Genesis 2 with the initial creation in Genesis 1.

Evolutionary scientists agree that living breathing creatures began in the sea. They were formed, obviously, from the soil in the sea bed.

If you want to insist that it was from mineral content in the seas that God created the birds....fine, that's permissible.....just don't confuse the Genesis 2 account with the Genesis 1 account to do it....
That's what you are doing wrong.

It is not a dichotomy to say that birds came forth from the sea and were made of soil.

No...it's just mistaken to confuse the separate events of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 to do so, and then cover your mistake by insulting someone and saying they "look like a fool" in order to cover up your error.

 

[Luke2427]

Yes, he did this in the Garden of Eden, after the initial creative act specified in Genesis 1.........where he "created" not "formed" them. In Genesis 1...He "CREATED" (that's bara)........ in chapter 2, only in the garden he "formed" from pre-existing material. I am FULLY aware of the difference in verbiage. In Genesis 1 he created them...in Genesis 2 he formed from existent matter......You have no point.

NO...this "lengthy mess" is me explaining to you that what you have read in Genesis 2 is something specific to the garden ONLY, not the initial creative act. The Genesis 1 account back-straps the creation of the birds to the account of creating the fish........no such luck in chapter 2.

You may imagine that I am looking a "fool", but you clearly don't understand the account.
In Genesis 2 God is forming all manner of animals in front of Adam who is already now created and placed IN THE GARDEN

Here's the chronology and note the addresses:
Gen 2:15
¶And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Now your verse about forming <---- (which was pointles to harp on)the birds from the ground:
Gen 2:19
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Your M.O. seems to be to simply casually insult and then dismiss whole-sale any person when they bring up arguments they don't like. That's not meaningful.

No, I think you are off-base bantering about what God did uniquely in the garden as a post-creative event. In Genesis 1 God says:
Gen 1:20
¶And God said, Let the waters bring forth
Now, if you want to insist that it was of the mineral and earth content FROM the oceans then, fine....o.k. that's one thing, but that's not what you are doing, you are mistaking the act in Genesis 2 with the initial creation in Genesis 1.

If you want to insist that it was from mineral content in the seas that God created the birds....fine, that's permissible.....just don't confuse the Genesis 2 account with the Genesis 1 account to do it....
That's what you are doing wrong.

No...it's just mistaken to confuse the separate events of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 to do so, and then cover your mistake by insulting someone and saying they "look like a fool" in order to cover up your error.

Genesis two is repeating what God did in Genesis 1 with added detail.

Nobody on earth but you purports that God is continuing the creative process in front of Adam.

Nobody on earth.

There is no more reason to think that God is creating more animals in Genesis two than there is to think that he is creating another man in Genesis 2.

I cannot believe I have to explain this to you.

Furthermore, " let the waters bring forth" in Genesis 1:20 is best translated "Let the waters swarm with..."

New International Version
And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky."

New Living Translation
Then God said, "Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind."

English Standard Version
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.”

New American Standard Bible
Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Then God said, "Let the water swarm with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."

International Standard Version
Then God said, "Let the oceans swarm with living creatures, and let flying creatures soar above the earth throughout the sky!"

NET Bible
God said, "Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Then God said, "Let the water swarm with swimming creatures, and let birds fly through the sky over the earth."

American Standard Version
And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Darby Bible Translation
And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living souls, and let fowl fly above the earth in the expanse of the heavens.

World English Bible
God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of sky."

Young's Literal Translation
And God saith, 'Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature, and fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens.'

 

[Inspector Javert]

Genesis two is repeating what God did in Genesis 1 with added detail.

It is not, if it is a repeat of the Genesis 1 account, than they are blatantly contradictory because the order is completely different. There are numerous differences between what occured in chapter 1 and 2. It is practically impossible that they be. This is a more detailed account of what occured on day six more specifically.

Nobody on earth but you purports that God is continuing the creative process in front of Adam.

He is not "continuing the creative process"...he is forming the animals which are to inhabit the garden with him......and I assure you, I am absolutely not alone in this. These are events which occur specifically on day six.

Nobody on earth.

You need to get out more.

There is no more reason to think that God is creating more animals in Genesis two than there is to think that he is creating another man in Genesis 2.

No, he isn't "creating" them......he did all acts of "creation" in Genesis 1.....He's "forming" now. Didn't you harp on this in the last post? He is now forming animals and plants in front of him from the earth in the garden.

I cannot believe I have to explain this to you.

You have not explained anything.

The accounts in Genesis 2 are post the events out-lined in Genesis 1...specifically they cover the events of day 6. God is forming animals in front of Adam, in the garden, and having him name them.

 

[Luke2427]

It is not, if it is a repeat of the Genesis 1 account, than they are blatantly contradictory because the order is completely different. There are numerous differences between what occured in chapter 1 and 2. It is practically impossible that they be. This is a more detailed account of what occured on day six more specifically.

He is not "continuing the creative process"...he is forming the animals which are to inhabit the garden with him......and I assure you, I am absolutely not alone in this. These are events which occur specifically on day six.

You need to get out more.

No, he isn't "creating" them......he did all acts of "creation" in Genesis 1.....He's "forming" now. Didn't you harp on this in the last post? He is now forming animals and plants in front of him from the earth in the garden.

You have not explained anything.

The accounts in Genesis 2 are post the events out-lined in Genesis 1...specifically they cover the events of day 6. God is forming animals in front of Adam, in the garden, and having him name them.

Name one other person on Earth who purports that Genesis 2 is God forming what he created in Genesis 1.

It is weird psycho mess!

You are KILLING any hopes that anybody who ever reads this could ever take you seriously as an exegete again.

Genesis 2 is not ABOUT order. It is like the book of revelation which bounces around and repeats things in no uncertain order.

Millions of pieces of literature still use this paradigm today.

Books begin in the middle and jump to the start and tell the story in unordered pieces. It makes for a very interesting story and interesting way to unfold it.

If you don't know this, you are not fit for debate on these matters. And I am not attacking you or trying to demean you. I am saying that you are not ready to debate such matters.

Now, name ONE REPUTABLE SCHOLAR ON EARTH WHO THINKS THAT GENESIS 2 IS TALKING ABOUT THIS WEIRD BUSINESS OF GOD FORMING WHAT HE ALREADY MADE IN GENESIS 1 IN FRONT OF ADAM IN THE GARDEN.

Just one.

I'll wait right here.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Name one other person on Earth who purports that Genesis 2 is God forming what he created in Genesis 1.

It is weird psycho mess!

You are KILLING any hopes that anybody who ever reads this could ever take you seriously as an exegete again.

Genesis 2 is not ABOUT order. It is like the book of revelation which bounces around and repeats things in no uncertain order.

Millions of pieces of literature still use this paradigm today.

Books begin in the middle and jump to the start and tell the story in unordered pieces. It makes for a very interesting story and interesting way to unfold it.

If you don't know this, you are not fit for debate on these matters. And I am not attacking you or trying to demean you. I am saying that you are not ready to debate such matters.

Now, name ONE REPUTABLE SCHOLAR ON EARTH WHO THINKS THAT GENESIS 2 IS TALKING ABOUT THIS WEIRD BUSINESS OF GOD FORMING WHAT HE ALREADY MADE IN GENESIS 1 IN FRONT OF ADAM IN THE GARDEN.

Just one.

I'll wait right here.

Henry Morris.
The entire staff at Answers in Genesis off the top of my head.

You seriously need to get out more if you think I am alone on this one.

 

[Luke2427]

Henry Morris.
The entire staff at Answers in Genesis off the top of my head.

You seriously need to get out more if you think I am alone on this one.

Provide the QUOTE!!!!

As far as I know, you are lying.

Provide a single QUOTE from them. One single quote.

Can you do it?

 

[Luke2427]

When I provide the following quote by Henry Morris which agrees with me that Genesis 2 is just a more detailed account of the creation account given in Genesis 1, I think the honorable thing for you to do is say something like, "Luke, you are right and I am wrong. The fact is that I am full of crap and I try to sound like I know what I am talking about when I really don't. Please forgive me for wasting your time and the time of anybody who has been following this. I lied about ICR and Henry Morris and I am sorry. Until I get some education I will not try to debate these kinds of things again."

Here is Henry Morris writing for ICR:

In the more detailed account of the forming of man and woman in Genesis 2, there was no need to mention the animals at all until they were to be brought before Adam to be "introduced" to him, as it were, and then named by him. The superficial contradiction is removed simply by noting that there is no distinction in Hebrew between the past tense and the pluperfect tense, the context determining which to use. By replacing the past tense ("formed") by the pluperfect ("had formed") in Genesis 2:19, one can read the verse as follows: "And out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field...."

 

[Inspector Javert]

From the AIG website:

..."in their plain sense. However, the argument is based on a misunderstanding of Genesis 2.

Genesis 1:1–2:3 provides us with a chronological account of what God did on each of the days during the creation week. Genesis 2:4–25 zooms in on day six and shows some of the events of that day.1 Let’s take a look at what happened on day six, according to Genesis 2, and we’ll see there is no discrepancy here.

■Adam is created (Genesis 2:7)
■Garden of Eden created (Genesis 2:8–9)
■Description of river system in Eden (Genesis 2:10–14)
■Adam put in Garden and given instructions (Genesis 2:15–17)
■Adam names some of the kinds of animals (Genesis 2:18–20)
■God creates Eve (Genesis 2:21–22)
■Description of Adam, Eve, and marriage (Genesis 2:23–25)
The particular issue that people have with Genesis 2 is that the order of the creation of man, animals, and trees seems to be contrary to the order stated in Genesis 1.

Genesis 2:7 describes the creation of man.

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 being. (Genesis 2:7)
Following the creation of man, Genesis 2:9 mentions that God created trees, including the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

“And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” (Genesis 2:9)
Then Genesis 2:19 mentions the creation of certain land animals.

Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. (Genesis 2:19)"http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/09/03/feedback-genesis-1-and-2

Henry Morris outlines this position in his Book The Genesis Record:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0890510261/?tag=baptis04-20

I am sorry you think me lying, but, frankly, I am surprised you have a hard time believing that I am not flying alone on this. It's really quite a common explanation of those passages. I don't doubt many people here on B.B. understand Genesis 1 and 2 that way.

 

[Luke2427]

From the AIG website:

..."in their plain sense. However, the argument is based on a misunderstanding of Genesis 2.

Genesis 1:1–2:3 provides us with a chronological account of what God did on each of the days during the creation week. Genesis 2:4–25 zooms in on day six and shows some of the events of that day.1 Let’s take a look at what happened on day six, according to Genesis 2, and we’ll see there is no discrepancy here.

■Adam is created (Genesis 2:7)
■Garden of Eden created (Genesis 2:8–9)
■Description of river system in Eden (Genesis 2:10–14)
■Adam put in Garden and given instructions (Genesis 2:15–17)
■Adam names some of the kinds of animals (Genesis 2:18–20)
■God creates Eve (Genesis 2:21–22)
■Description of Adam, Eve, and marriage (Genesis 2:23–25)
The particular issue that people have with Genesis 2 is that the order of the creation of man, animals, and trees seems to be contrary to the order stated in Genesis 1.

Genesis 2:7 describes the creation of man.

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 being. (Genesis 2:7)
Following the creation of man, Genesis 2:9 mentions that God created trees, including the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

“And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” (Genesis 2:9)
Then Genesis 2:19 mentions the creation of certain land animals.

Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. (Genesis 2:19)"http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/09/03/feedback-genesis-1-and-2

Henry Morris outlines this position in his Book The Genesis Record:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0890510261/?tag=baptis04-20

I am sorry you think me lying, but, frankly, I am surprised you have a hard time believing that I am not flying alone on this. It's really quite a common explanation of those passages. I don't doubt many people here on B.B. understand Genesis 1 and 2 that way.

Nothing, not one thing, not one single word IN THE ABOVE QUOTE SAYS anything remotely close to what you HAVE BEEN SAYING.

Here is a quote from Ken Ham:

Actually, Genesis 2 is not a different account of creation. It is a more detailed account of Day 6 of creation. Chapter 1 is an overview of the whole of creation; chapter 2 gives details surrounding the creation of the garden, the first man, and his activities on Day 6.

Between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve, the King James Version says, “Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air” (Genesis 2:19). This seems to say that the land beasts and birds were created between the creation of Adam and Eve. However, Jewish scholars did not recognize any such conflict with the account in chapter 1, where Adam and Eve were both created after the beasts and birds (Genesis 1:23–25). There is no contradiction, because in Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb “formed” to mean “had formed” or “having formed” in Genesis 2:19 If we translate verse 19, “Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field,” the apparent disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely.

Read that quot Javert and tell us how that supports this mess you have saying.

Tell us.

Enter the Jeopardy theme song...

 

[Inspector Javert]

When I provide the following quote by Henry Morris which agrees with me that Genesis 2 is just a more detailed account of the creation account given in Genesis 1, I think the honorable thing for you to do is say something like, "Luke, you are right and I am wrong. The fact is that I am full of crap and I try to sound like I know what I am talking about when I really don't. Please forgive me for wasting your time and the time of anybody who has been following this. I lied about ICR and Henry Morris and I am sorry. Until I get some education I will not try to debate these kinds of things again."

Here is Henry Morris writing for ICR:

It is a more detailed account Luke.......of day six, not the entire creation story. This article does not contradict what I am saying. I did not mention ICR BTW....I mentioned AIG (two different groups and what-not).....I said nothing about ICR. Henry Morris outlines that position in his book The Genesis Record.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Nothing, not one thing, not one single word IN THE ABOVE QUOTE SAYS anything remotely close to what you HAVE BEEN SAYING.

Here is a quote from Ken Ham:



Read that quot Javert and tell us how that supports this mess you have saying.

Tell us.

Enter the Jeopardy theme song...

Ummm.....that's what I was saying Luke...Here's what you bolded Actually,

Genesis 2 is not a different account of creation. It is a more detailed account of Day 6 of creation.

That's from you:
Here was my previous statement:

...This is a more detailed account of what occured on day six more specifically.

The accounts in Genesis 2 are post the events out-lined in Genesis 1...specifically they cover the events of day 6.

That's what I've been saying. Maybe you didn't understand what I was saying...but that's what I've been saying Luke.

 

[Luke2427]

It is a more detailed account Luke.......of day six, not the entire creation story. This article does not contradict what I am saying. I did not mention ICR BTW....I mentioned AIG (two different groups and what-not).....I said nothing about ICR. Henry Morris outlines that position in his book The Genesis Record.

No he doesn't. I showed you that Henry Morris says what I have been saying to you.

That Genesis 2 is a more detailed account of Genesis 1.

Nobody, not even the most RABID YEC's like Ham and Morris are stupid enough to say anything close to what you say here:

In Genesis 2 God is forming all manner of animals in front of Adam who is already now created and placed IN THE GARDEN

They think the proper translation is "HAD FORMED."

NOBODY believes this crud you are saying here. NOBODY!!

I want to know what you think the Morris quote you provided does to support this ridiculous notion!