Regarding Genesis and the beginning of all things...

Most conservative commentators indicate that the account in Genesis 1 is a summary view [i.e., "the headlines"], whereas the account in Genesis 2 is a more detailed account of what took place on Day 6.

 

I don't know why. I guess you'll just have ask Him. :thumbs:

 

What is illogical about

1. Stating what God did - Gen. 1:1
2. Explaining how God did it - Gen. 1:2-2:4
3. Explaining significant details for the background of marriage and the fall in relationship to the creation of man - Gen. 2:5-25

 

GE:


Yes; more or less...

Chapter two the first verse, is the most concise 'summary' of the creation saga until the end of the Sixth Day.

Then chapter two proceeds with the making of the Seventh Day Sabbath also as a prelude and summary of what would follow about the Seventh Day in 3:8 further.

The in-between-section between 2:3 and 3:8 really is a summary in selected and FINER detail of the creation story of the first six days WITH MUCH MORE EMPHASIS ON THE EVENTS OF THE SIXTH DAY, the day of both Adam and Eve’s sinless creation, AND, fall into sin, than on the five days before it.

But, this historic section is written in review - that is, in loose and reversed chronological order. Real chronological order is resumed in 3:8 where the history of the first Sabbath Day is continued.

 

Why wouldn't God do that? It makes perfect sense to me.

 

We must remember the nature of ancient literature is different than our modern expressions. It is not irreconcilable to have two passages speaking about the same event differently. For instance, given the first Creation epic is in poetic form in Hebrew the second is the narrative account. The first focuses on the apologetic polemic in replying to pagan myths, the second focuses on the Creation of mankind and the placement in Eden.

We shouldn't import modern literary forms into ancient structures.

 

Good post. :thumbsup:

 

It was observations similar to the OP that led the German Liberal theologians to speculate that Genesis had four authors. They then began the process of taking apart the book (indeed, the entire Bible!) so as to discover all those secrets. If we didn't know better, we might accuse them of Gnosticism... :laugh: Or, perhaps we DO know better. :wavey:

The story of Genesis is what it is. Difficult to reconcile, yet truthful in what it says -- which is often different than what WE say about it.

I, personally, find it most refreshing to know that God did what He said, whether stylized into poetic meter or outright literal account, Genesis is the core of all else we hold as truth, including our salvation in Christ alone.

 

IT was Hebrew literary style to write the same thing twice. This can be seen all over the OT. Pointless to mention this because Baptist theology doesn't recognize literary types.

 

"...And I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness."

"God is a spirit; they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

I find no contradiction in the Bible because I recognize the presence of figures of speech and even different literary styles. The above example is a metaphor since it is apparent that God does not have hands.

However God had Moses pen the book of Genesis as a book of history easy enough for the nation of Israel to understand, as, not only the history of mankind, but their history. It was written plainly, simply and without mystery. There were no two creation, but only one. The second chapter is an expansion on the sixth day giving forth more clarity on the creation of Adam and Eve.

To make baseless charges that "baptist theology does not recognize different literary types," is an uneducated, unwarranted, and false allegation.

 

ge:

Good!

 

GE:

VERY GOOD !!

The third chapter from verse 8 gives the history of the first Sabbath and Seventh Day.

Therefore the second chapter verse 4 on to 3:7, includes the history of the fall.

 

>However God had Moses pen the book of Genesis as a book of history easy enough for the nation of Israel to understand, as, not only the history of mankind, but their history.

EXACTLY! A kindergarden version of what actually happened. Sort of like, "Your coming baby sister is growing in Mommy's tummy." On this list, such a statement is considered a lie.

 

Sorry, something did not copy right and I delete my reply to another post.

 

Nice try, but that simply will not wash. Go read the two and you will see that the second creation story is very different from the first and that it is not simply an extension of the sixth day. Also, there is still the problem of two versions of how Adam and Eve were created. Also, there is the problem that in Gen. 2 Adam and Eve were created before plants. So the 2nd creation story is not, as I said above, an extension of the 6th day.

This causes me absolutely no problem as both stories say "God did it" and that is what is important.



Gen. 2:4-7:

Gen. 1:20-25:

 

Not only will it wash but it is fact.

And there is no problem between the two accounts. It is an odd thing to suggest there is.

If it is wrong you cant know that God even said it.

 

That is your opinion and I will defend you right to believe it.

There are a number of problems:

In Gen. 2......................

1. Rain had not fallen when Adam and Eve were created.
2. Plants had not been created yet. The earth was barren.
3. Eve is made from the dust of the earth, not Adam's rib.
4. Days are not mentioned in the 2nd account. No time line, so it is possible to say it is an extension of the 6th day only if you take a very, indeed, extremely liberal interpretation of the 2nd account.

There are other reasons also. But I won't go into them.

Believing that God said it and created is an article of faith regardless of how you interpret the Bible. To me, as I said before, the important aspect of each story, the crux of the matter is that God did it.

 

Crabtownboy, are you content with seeing two contradictory accounts or are you willing to find reconciliation?

I'm aware of your third option to resolve the conflict you see in Genesis 1-2: that Genesis 1-2 is not a narrative of actual historical events, but two different parabolic accounts attempting to illustrate to pre-scientific people how God is sovereign over the world. This causes more problems than the apparent one you see with Genesis 1-2 (such as ignoring Hebrew grammar and making nonsense of the sabbath law). What you view as problems really aren't, as we'll see:

1. Does this contradict Genesis 1? I don't recall rain falling before Adam was created in Genesis 1. Quite the opposite, Genesis 1 speaks of "dry ground" (1:9-10).

2. There seems to be no emphasis on chronology at all in Genesis 2, in huge contrast with the rigid chronology in Genesis 1. Plants are mentioned in 2:5 and 2:8. v8 says Man was placed in a garden, a garden of edible things (of the type mentioned in Genesis 1, specifically v11-12), which implies plants had already been established in a local area (on Day 3 as Genesis 1 says). v5 is about field plants, cultivated plants, which later became infested with thorns. Those plants were not in existence on Day 3 but came about after Man sinned. This is one possible method of reconciliation.

3. Where does it say in Genesis 1 or 2 that Eve was made from the dust of the earth?

4. It should be clear from plain reading comprehension that Genesis 2 is primarily interested in elaborating and expanding on the creation of Man and the genesis of Woman, together called "mankind" in Genesis 1, the making of which occurred on Day 6. (They were not named until Genesis 3, after the Fall.) I would not call Genesis 2 an "extension" for the reason you cite: Genesis 2 has no clear chronological feel to it, quite contrasted with the rigid chronology of Genesis 1. Plus Genesis 2:4 "resets" the narrative, a break in thought, a new "chapter". However, it is clearly not wholly separate; it's a reiteration, an expansion of a part of Genesis 1.

It seems some of your problems are invented, Crabtownboy; others are easily solvable if a little thought is applied.

I don't deny the wording in Genesis 2 is a bit convoluted, but it's not incomprehensible or contradictory.

Seeking reconciliation between apparently contradictory statements—seeking a coherent meaning—is the Principle of Charity, a principle we apply to fallible people we talk to every day. Why deny this principle to God who cannot contradict Himself?