In the Beginning....

[Dr. Walter]

What does this have to do with faith or faith alone? I'm speaking of Genesis' creation account. What does your caveat have to do with the price of tea in China?

Very simple! There is no such thing as a saved man justified by the works of the law. Blind men cannot see. DHK's questions and conclusions are solid as a rock.

 

[Jedi Knight]

A Darwinist once said "everything can be summed up as follows....Time,Force,Action,Space,Matter". John MacArthur pointed out in responce ....."In the beginning" — that's time. "God" — that's force. "Created" — that's action. "The heavens" — that's space. "And the earth" — that's matter.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

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.

DHK, you quoted me.

But, your response completely lost me... I didn't follow what you were saying...

As for "Dating Methods" I have maintained that same premise. Here we are at the end of a long period of Creation History and a *very* limited period of Scientific Observation and assuming that because we observe a certain periodicity in Radioactive Decay that it was constant throughout time.

However, who us us were there at the begining?

Who of us have Scientific Records for the entire period?

Also, radioactive decay *can* be influeced by external radioactive exposure... That is you can make something more Radioactive by exposing it to certain forms of radiation. And, you can also speed up the decay by exposing it to radiation.

One last question, assuming the Shroud of Turin legitimate, has anyone formulated what type of "radiation" could have actually caused such an image given the assumptions we knpw now?

Perhaps, , God has a form of radiation that affects materials differently than *anything* Science has seen or accounted for...

 

[DHK]

DHK, you quoted me.

I don't know where I quoted you. Perhaps our answers were just similar in nature.

One last question, assuming the Shroud of Turin legitimate, has anyone formulated what type of "radiation" could have actually caused such an image given the assumptions we knpw now?

I don't assume for one minute that that forgery (or work of Satan) is legitimate. People (like the RCC) like to have things to worship, and that is just one more thing they can add to their repertoire.

 

[Amy.G]

One last question, assuming the Shroud of Turin legitimate, has anyone formulated what type of "radiation" could have actually caused such an image given the assumptions we knpw now?

The shroud is not legitimate. There were two burials cloths on Jesus. One wrapped on the body and one on the face. The facial image would not have been on the large piece of cloth as it appears on the shroud.

John 20:6-7 Then came Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulcher, and saw the linen cloths lying, And the cloth, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

 

[percho]

Those who believe the Word of God know for sure.

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.

Scripture does not say 'For in millions of years 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.'

Scripture says the earth was created in six days. The same Hebrew word for day that is found in Genesis 1:5 is found more than 1900 times in the Old Testament. All of these must represent the same time period... a day or days that consisted of 24 hours each.

The earth was without form and void does not mean the earth existed previously. It simply means it was without form and empty. God had spoke the earth into existence. It had no mountains, no valleys. It was just a collection of dirt that had nothing on it.

Over the next 5 days, God began to populate the earth with plants, animals, and ultimately... man.

Earth was created in 6 days just as Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 declare it was.

Do you know what all of this was made for? BTW How did God make the sabbath?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is how you explained your view:

No clarity at all. The only conclusion I get out of this is that "God contradicts himself."

This response show a lack of accuity. that response was to you. Not how I explained the genesis account. This is how I explained it and its quite clear.

Me

This is where the issue is for me. I agree scripture doesn't contradict itself yet here we have a clear disruption of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 if and only if you've taken scripture as you have. Which leads me to believe the genesis 1 account isn't to be taken as you have taken which means the type of literary style, the context of the period in which it was writen, The culture in which it was written we come up with a differing approach to what the author meant. It is clear in Genesis 2 that when man was made "no shrub" and "no plant" had yet appeared. So what are we to make of it. Well further fromt he Westminster theological journal we have a good approach

My quote from the journal

This question has
intrigued and perplexed me for some time. Is the absence of rain mere
geographical decoration or quasi-irrelevant data that sets the stage for the
really important material that follows? Or is this information that is founda-
tional to the narrative and its theology?...Verses 5-7 articu-
late a two-fold problem, reason for the problem, and solution to the problem.5
Verse 5a articulates the problem: "No siah-hassadeh had yet appeared in
the land, and no ‘eseb-hassadeh yet sprung up."...Claus Westermann, on the
other hand, has provided some specificity:
siah describes mainly but not exclusively shrubs or the wild shrubs of the steppe
(Gen 21:15; Job 30:4, 7), and ‘eseb-hassadeh plants that serve for food or
domestic plantsBut even greater specificity is attainable. The phrase, siah-hassadeh, refers to
the wild vegetation that grows spontaneously after the onset of the rainy
season, and ‘eseb-hassadeh refers to cultivated grains...Verse 5b articulates the two-fold reason for the problem with impeccable
logic: "because the Lord God had not sent rain on the land, and there was
no man to cultivate the ground." There was no vegetation that springs up
spontaneously as a result of the rains, because there was no rain. And there was
no cultivated grain, because there was no cultivator. So that the reader will not
miss the two-fold reason corresponding to the two-fold problem, the Hebrew
text focuses the reader's attention on the two-fold reason, the absence of rain
and the absence of anyone to cultivate the fields, by placing himtir ("sent rain")
and 'adam ("man") in the clause-initial position in their respective clauses.
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 Verses 6-7 provide the two-fold solution: "So [God] caused rain clouds
to rise up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground, and
the Lord God formed the man. . . ." Verse 7 says, "the LORD God formed
the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life, and the man became a living being." Here lies the solution
to the second prong of the two-fold problem and reason. The logic is cogent
and the picture is coherent: "no cultivated grain had sprung up ... for
there was no one to cultivate the land ... and the LORD God formed the
man." This is all rather straight forward and uncontested.

Me further pointing it out

Which doesn't contradict the narration in Genesis 1 when you view the literary type and organization of this type of literature. Remember Genesis 1 has a refrain with each day and is similar to Psalms in this respect.

and further to clearify by what I mean of organizational format

I take the 6 days of creation account as an organizational method of explaining creation using 6 days to organize it set it up for an explination of the 7th holy day with out being literally 6 days. The six days are refrain like to provide for a better memory and to repudiate any other creation story account of the gods within that cultural context. The story is structured to disrupt accepted Ideas of the gods creation account of Egypt and Summeria but subjecting each aspect of nature under God's authority. It is orgainzed by days to set a framework for a week specifically establishing a base where with the Sabbath is added and made holy. The days are organizational method to show three fold step of creation of days 1-3 with more detailed explination set up in the following 3 day period 4-6 and leaving the 7th day as Holy. Which interestingly enough with the establishment of Jesus kingdom and the redemption of man and the world the 7th day becomes part of the 3 days "of Christ death and ressurrection". Days 1-3 creation in general terms Days 4-6 creation in specific terms day 7 is holy and becomes inclusive of, (or Good Friday to Ressurrection sunday) 3 days creation is redeemed.
The latter part regarding the 7th day admittedly is my speculation but the prior part is an established theory.

I think that explains it clearly.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Very simple! There is no such thing as a saved man justified by the works of the law. Blind men cannot see. DHK's questions and conclusions are solid as a rock.

It wasn't DHK's question but yours and it has nothing to do with the discussion of whether to take genesis 1 and 2 as literally 6 days of creation. His and your conclusions are only as solid as your ability to interpret scripture. Which at times I wonder about.

It was a blatent attempt to change the discussion of the thread into an opportunity for a witch hunt. My premise is that you can be a born again believing Christian and not take genesis as literally as you have based on holding to a scripture alone perspective and a contextual understanding of the text when it was written.

 

[Dr. Walter]

It wasn't DHK's question but yours and it has nothing to do with the discussion of whether to take genesis 1 and 2 as literally 6 days of creation. His and your conclusions are only as solid as your ability to interpret scripture. Which at times I wonder about.

It was a blatent attempt to change the discussion of the thread into an opportunity for a witch hunt. My premise is that you can be a born again believing Christian and not take genesis as literally as you have based on holding to a scripture alone perspective and a contextual understanding of the text when it was written.

Your theory of the Genesis account reduces God down to the level of mimicking pagan compositions of origins of that day and makes his words as mythical as the Gilgamish Ephoch. Hence, there is no valid reason why anything that is recorded on the sixth day of creation should be taken any more literal than anything recorded in the previous five days. In fact, this whole literary disposal of the six days of creation into the garbage can of "organizational" memory aide reduces the Genesis account to the fiction level of the Gilgamish Epoch and makes a creation by Elohim no more credible than the Babylonian account of creation.

If you are going to accept and apply such literary concept to Genesis one then what stops you from applying this to the flood story, the tower of Babel, Abraham, or any other account by Moses?

On the other hand, your quotation from the Westminister journel and its conclusion:



The phrase, siah-hassadeh, refers to
the wild vegetation that grows spontaneously after the onset of the rainy
season, and ‘eseb-hassadeh refers to cultivated grains...Verse 5b articulates the two-fold reason for the problem with impeccable logic: "because the Lord God had not sent rain on the land, and there was no man to cultivate the ground." There was no vegetation that springs up spontaneously as a result of the rains, because there was no rain. And there was no cultivated grain, because there was no cultivator...........The logic is cogent and the picture is coherent: "no cultivated grain had sprung up ... for there was no one to cultivate the land ... and the LORD God formed the man." This is all rather straight forward and uncontested.

I can take this statement to simply mean that WILD vegetation had not SPONTANEOUSLY sprung up as a consequence of lack of RAIN (not creation) and CULTIVATED grains had not occurred due to the lack of a CULTIVATOR.

The most fundemental rule of interpretation is that you accept every word at its normal common ordinary LITERAL meaning unless the immediate and overall context absolutely forbids that meaning. There is nothing about Genesis 2:5-7 that forbids the common ordinary meaning of the ENTIRE CHAPTER of Genesis one from being understood in its normal common ordinary LITERAL meaning.

Be consistent - If you are going to deny the literal meaning to the six days of creation then you equally have no grounds to accept the literal meaning of anything that is recorded to have occurred in any of those days and therefore you have no basis to observe any Sabbath as a 24 hour period.

This type of interpretational method is the same type which is adopted by those who deny the inspiration of the Scriptures, miracles, historicity of other parts of the Penteteuch, historicity of Jesus Christ etc.

 

[BobRyan]

ThinkingStuff quotes Westminster-T.J

Gen 2

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 Verses 6-7 provide the two-fold solution: "So [God] caused rain clouds
to rise up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground, and
the Lord God formed the man. . . ." Verse 7 says,

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.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

Good job Bob!

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. 7And the


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.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Do you know what all of this was made for? BTW How did God make the sabbath?

The Sabbath was made "by example". God rested - and that act sanctified time -- the 7th day of each week.

Gen 2

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.
2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

Ex 20:
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Sixdays you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made theheavens and the earth, the sea and allthat is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Notice how Ex 20:11 ties in with Gen 2:1-3 and forces the conclusion for a literal 7 day week in Gen 1:2-2:3?

 

[BobRyan]

Good job Bob!

Thanks. (Now you see? We need not differ on "every" point

in Christ,

Bob

 

[percho]

The Sabbath was made "by example". God rested - and that act sanctified time -- the 7th day of each week.

Gen 2

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.
2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

Ex 20:
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Sixdays you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made theheavens and the earth, the sea and allthat is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Notice how Ex 20:11 ties in with Gen 2:1-3 and forces the conclusion for a literal 7 day week in Gen 1:2-2:3?

No. 1 I do not rule my being wrong. Would not be the first and am sure won't be the last. However God created the heavens and the earth. And this was done to be inhabited. now in both as you posted it also says made and then made the sabbath by resting. It also was made for man. In Ex. 20:11 this making took place in six days. In six days he made it habitable for the man he was going to create on the sixth day. I think that is the meaning in Ps. 104:30

Now when God speaks of laying the foundations of the earth in Job I do not know who or if it was to be inhabited by anything or anyone other that angels at that time. That is assuming the sons of God spoken of there were angels. I do believe it was something beautiful and became without form and void because of the sin of Satan and the demons.

I do believe before anything was done on day one in Gen. 1:3 that the Lamb of God was slain in the Spirit and purpose of God. Therefore the image of God to be created in man only began in the first man Adam but would be made complete in the Word made flesh dying and being resurrected the second Adam then we being resurrected/changed into his image in a moment in the twinkling of an an eye at the last trump.

 

[BobRyan]

God never says that Angels were created on earth or born on earth.

There is no day in Genesis 1 - out of the 7 day creation week where God says "And let the earth bring forth angels" or "and God formed angels from the dust of the earth".

in fact the Bible calls them "principalities and powers in the heavenly places" and in Rev 12 we see that they are "cast down" to earth after they lose the "war in heaven".

Paul says "though we or an Angel from heaven" Gal 1:8 should preach to you a different gospel let him be accursed. Thus the place for Angels is heaven - not earth.

Only fallen ones are "cast down to earth" and even then - only because Adam turns over the keys to the place in Gen 3.

Rev 12:7 "There was war IN HEAVEN" the angels fight in heaven and the losers are cast down - out of heaven.

It appears from scripture that Angels and the entire universe was created before day 1 for planet earth.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

God never says that Angels were created on earth or born on earth.

It appears from scripture that Angels and the entire universe was created before day 1 for planet earth.
Bob

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. (Exodus 20:11)
All that God created (including the universe, angels, etc.) was created within six days. The he ceased from his creating. Nothing was created after that. That is the meaning of the Sabbath. God doesn't take naps. He doesn't rest. He ceased from creating. He hasn't created anything since. He never created anything before. There was only one creation.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

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. (Exodus 20:11)
All that God created (including the universe, angels, etc.) was created within six days. The he ceased from his creating. Nothing was created after that. That is the meaning of the Sabbath. God doesn't take naps. He doesn't rest. He ceased from creating. He hasn't created anything since. He never created anything before. There was only one creation.

Which Heaven? First Heaven, second heaven, Third Heaven...

It does not say Heavens, Plural... It said Heaven Singular...

So, it is theoretically possible that there was something created and in existence before the creation Event of Man on Earth...

This does not diminish God at all. But, would portray Him as continuously creative.

He rested on the Seventh Day.

It does not tell us what He did on the eighth day or any other day after that, except as it directly relates to His Covenant with Man on This earth.


As regards the Shroud of Turin, whether it is authentic or not. The point I was trying to make is that there exists a possibility that forms of radiation exists which Science has no clue about and which could affect things like Carbon-14 content.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your theory of the Genesis account reduces God down to the level of mimicking pagan compositions of origins of that day and makes his words as mythical as the Gilgamish Ephoch. Hence, there is no valid reason why anything that is recorded on the sixth day of creation should be taken any more literal than anything recorded in the previous five days. In fact, this whole literary disposal of the six days of creation into the garbage can of "organizational" memory aide reduces the Genesis account to the fiction level of the Gilgamish Epoch and makes a creation by Elohim no more credible than the Babylonian account of creation.

You are missing out on an essential consept when it comes to biblical literature. God as he inspires men allows for them to use contemporary art forms of liturature to convey a message. Palms, Wisdom literature, etc... are specific forms of literature common to the people and region in which it was written. And in that sense using contemporary forms to convey his message certainly the bible genesis account can be viewed and contrasted with summerian creation accounts since they are written in the same period and by the same cultural context. It doesn't limit God. It suggest that God speaks to us on our level so that we can understand him the better. You suggest that the bible is a heavenly technical manual but clearly it is not the Golden tablets set down to Joseph Smith or the forced memorization from Golden script that Mohammad purveys. No It is God inspiring Man, and man who writes according to his understanding. Things which go beyond mans understanding are God's direct orchestration of the work still through man. Thus the bible contain different literary styles that must be taken into context. And one of those things I believe is the Genesis account.

If you are going to accept and apply such literary concept to Genesis one then what stops you from applying this to the flood story, the tower of Babel, Abraham, or any other account by Moses?

Context with in the literary type.

I can take this statement to simply mean that WILD vegetation had not SPONTANEOUSLY sprung up as a consequence of lack of RAIN (not creation) and CULTIVATED grains had not occurred due to the lack of a CULTIVATOR

or any plant as well. The distinction in the passage isn't wrought.

The most fundemental rule of interpretation is that you accept every word at its normal common ordinary LITERAL meaning unless the immediate and overall context absolutely forbids that meaning.

Exactly which I have done. Its you who forces connection to genesis 1. Taken quite literally it means there is no vegitation.

Be consistent - If you are going to deny the literal meaning to the six days of creation then you equally have no grounds to accept the literal meaning of anything that is recorded to have occurred in any of those days and therefore you have no basis to observe any Sabbath as a 24 hour period.

As a matter of fact I am consistent. I don't take this part of Genesis two more literally than genesis one. I use the chapter to show inconsistencies with taking both literally.

This type of interpretational method is the same type which is adopted by those who deny the inspiration of the Scriptures, miracles, historicity of other parts of the Penteteuch, historicity of Jesus Christ etc.

This type of interpretation method is also the same type as many who hold to the inspiration of the scriptures but understand literature context and period context. I haven't denied miracles. The fact is the greater body of biblical scholars take the text as I've shown you.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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.

in Christ,

Bob

Your streatching it a bit. Genesis 2 problems is still in contrast with genesis one. There is not indication that there is any other vegitation in Genesis two. BTW aren't fruit cultivated plants as well? Its forcing the texts together but it in the end doesn't work because you can't apply Dr. Walter's simple rule of biblical interpretation. You must work to make the text be a continuation of Genesis 1. The problem is genesis one is to be taken differently. Genesis two sets up a problem which resolves by showing man's place in the world.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Your streatching it a bit. Genesis 2 problems is still in contrast with genesis one. There is not indication that there is any other vegitation in Genesis two. BTW aren't fruit cultivated plants as well? Its forcing the texts together but it in the end doesn't work because you can't apply Dr. Walter's simple rule of biblical interpretation. You must work to make the text be a continuation of Genesis 1. The problem is genesis one is to be taken differently. Genesis two sets up a problem which resolves by showing man's place in the world.

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