Regarding Genesis and the beginning of all things...

[Alive in Christ]

In Genesis we have what appears to be 2 different accounts of the biginning of all things

The 1st one ...Genesis 1:26-2:3

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[a] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. 31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended 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.

The 2nd one...Genesis 2:4-2-25

4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

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 being.

8 The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. 9 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.
10 Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted and became four riverheads. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which skirts the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 And the gold of that land is good. Bdellium and the onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one which goes around the whole land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is Hiddekel; it is the one which goes toward the east of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.
15 Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

18 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 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. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
23 And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

I would be interested in any and all views regarding this.

And also, does anyone believe that Clarence Larkins view...(that there was a pre-adamic human population, but for some reason unknown to us, God destroyed it for some reason, and started over)..is a reasonable view?

Thanks

 

[ktn4eg]

In Genesis we have what appears to be 2 different accounts of the biginning of all things

The 1st one ...Genesis 1:26-2:3








The 2nd one...Genesis 2:4-2-25



I would be interested in any and all views regarding this.

And also, does anyone believe that Clarence Larkins view...(that there was a pre-adamic human population, but for some reason unknown to us, God destroyed it for some reason, and started over)..is a reasonablr view?

Thanks

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.

 

[Alive in Christ]

KTF4eg....

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.

But why? Why would God do that? Why not just give the complete detailed version all at once?

 

[ktn4eg]

KTF4eg....



But why? Why would God do that? Why not just give the complete detailed version all at once?

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

 

[Dr. Walter]

KTF4eg....



But why? Why would God do that? Why not just give the complete detailed version all at once?

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

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

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.

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.

 

[DHK]

KTF4eg....



But why? Why would God do that? Why not just give the complete detailed version all at once?

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

 

[preachinjesus]

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.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

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:

 

[glfredrick]

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.

 

[billwald]

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.

 

[DHK]

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.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

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.

ge:

Good!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

..................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.
..........................

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.

 

[billwald]

>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.

 

[Crabtownboy]

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

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

 

[Crabtownboy]

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.

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:

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Gen. 1:20-25:

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

 

[mandym]

Nice try, but that simply will not wash.

Not only will it wash but it is fact.

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.

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

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

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

 

[Crabtownboy]

Not only will it wash but it is fact.

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

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

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.

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

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.

 

[Buho]

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.

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?