Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2

Let me begin by saying I love and totally respect Christian brothers who do not believe in this gap interpretation. And I could be wrong.How would you answer me this question ?Where did the pitch come from that Noah used in the construction of the ark ? See Genesis 6:14. Isn't that a tar which indicates ancient vegetation was compressed ?Concerning a gap? Did you know that the Spirit of God might totally skip over something for spiritual reasons? Perhaps in the discussion at hand God might not account certain things positively at the moment, and exclude their mention.For example, in Hebrews 11 we are being told of the heroes of faith. By faith these saints accomplished certain things. Notice that the writer, under inspiration, skips over the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness: "By faith he [Moses] instituted the Passover and the pouring out of the blood so the one destroying the firstborn would not touch them.

​

By faith they passed through the Red Sea as through dry land, in which the Egyptians, while making the attempt, were swallowed up.

​

By faith the walls of Jericho fell, having been encircled for a period of seven days." (Heb. 11:28-30) Notice that there is a "gap" of about 40 years. For some reason God did not want to include in this outline of faith, the wilderness wandering of 40 years. The wandering which occured because of thier lack of faith is simply skipped over leaving a gap. Mentioning it simply does not meet the priorities of the Holy Spirit at the moment.Could it be that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 there could be an interval of unspecified length within which there is something that does not immediately support the burden of the Spirit ? The "gap" may not be mentioned. I agree. But something of the pre-Adamic history of Satan could be mentioned which is best located in that gap. And I think this is what the Bible does when we are latter told about the origins of an anointed cherub of some superhuman characteristics. I refer to passages in Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14. Much of the speech in these passages seem to point beyond mere human figures.I think they are instances of the prophetic past unveiling the pre-Adamic origin of Satan. The case for an interval in which something rendered the original creation waste and void is not that strengthened by the isolated occurences of the words tohu or vabohu. It is the use of the words TOGETHER which some have pointed out indicate divine overthrow.True, in isolated instances, the two words do not necessarily indicate divine overthrow. Together the two words form a kind of poetic phrase similar to the phrase "topsy turvy". Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

ICANT, the Adam and his wife in Genesis 2 is the same Adam in Genesis 1.Both chapters are about the first human. They are just told from two different angles.Now is that something you are not saying or are saying ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Okay. I see your point. But let me just address this matter of man's creation. I am not attempting to remove all discrepencies. I am just focusing on the issue of Adam.The man created in Genesis chapter one, I take as the first man. I take as the initial creation of man and man's beginning. I have no reason to assume that God is not talking about the beginning of man:Genesis 1:26 and 27 should be about initial man, the first man. Do you agree ?Now, can the man in Genesis 2 be a different subsequent man? I have to take the man in Genesis 2 as the first man: "So also it is written, The first man, Adam, became a living soul ..." (1 Cor. 15:45a) This surely is a reference to Genesis 2: "And Jehovah God formed man with the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." That was Adam, the first man.So while conceding some difficult to reconcile statements between chapters one and two, I have to conclude that the first man is being discribed in each of the two paradoxically juxtaposed accounts.If the woman was brought into existence on the same sixth day sometime, would it not be a true statement that "God created man in His own image. In the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (Genesis 1:27) ?Of chapter two, G.H Pember says: "Hence in this second account reference is made to other works of the Six Days only when they happen to be immediately connected with the main subject, and without any regard to the order in which they were performed" [Earth Earliest Ages, G.H. Pember, pg. 73, Revell] Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

God calling male and the female Adam is not a problem at all.
Christ is the second man or the last Adam. Christ and His Body the church are also called "the Christ". "For even as the body is one and has many members, yet all the members of the body, being many, are one body, so also is the Christ." (1 Cor. 12:12)Since the first man is a type of the second man, Adam and the female are called Adam and Christ and His counterpart are also refered to as "the Christ".And saying Adam is not also a proper name introduces more problems then it solves. Adam is the father of Seth according to Luke's geneology (3:38) - "Seth the son of Adam the son of God".As Seth is a proper name so is Adam and every other name in the geneology as also in Genesis 5 - "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years ..." (Gen. 5:4). See also First Chronicles 1:1,2 - "Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared ..."But in Genesis 5:4 Adam is the father of Seth. And the man in Genesis 2 begets Seth after Abel is killed and Cain becomes a fugitive in chapter 3. "And Adam knew his wife again; and she gave birth to a son and called his name Seth for, she said, God has appointed me another seed instead of Abel, because Cain slew him." (Gen. 4:25)There is no question that this is a seamless line of history to the man formed in chapter 2 of whom it says in 3:24 - 4:1: "So He [Jehovah God] drove the man out, and at the east of the garden of Eden He placed the cherubim and a flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life. And the man knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain ..." Then that must be the first man. What do you do with Genesis 5:1 which tells us that the man Adam who fathered Seth was made in the likeness of God ? "This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created Adam, He made him in the likeness of God. Male and female He created them and He blessed them (as in Genesis 1:27) ... and called their name Adam, on the day they were created. And Adam lived one hundred thirty years and begot a son in his likeness according to his image, and he called his name Seth." (Gen. 5:1-3) This passage does say Adam, the father of Seth (who is the Adam of Genesis 2) was made in the likeness of God. And the phrase "Male and female He created them" links this Adam of chapter 2 to the man in Genesis 1:26,27. I do not have this confusion. You're speaking with me now. This may be only an apparent problem. You have two prophetic utterances. And the second one may be from a different point of view.I do admit that trying to harmonize the two accounts may be very difficult. But I think that is deliberate because we human beings are experts at missing the point.I am willing to bare the embaressment of not being able to construct a 100% fool proof harmonization. While it presents some problems to the natural mind making the two accounts refer to two different men leads to more problems.For instance, Genesis 5:1-3 confirms that this Adam the father of Seth was made in the likeness of God. Saying as you have that the man in Genesis 1:26,27 is in image and likeness of God but the man of Genesis 2 is not, is just falling into error.First Corinthians 11:7 also refers to the man as "the image and glory of God." And it seems that Paul has in mind not just man as in Genesis 1 but also in Genesis 2. For in the very next verse he writes "For man is not out of woman, but woman out of man." (v.8) There is no question that he has before him Genesis 2 as well as Genesis 1. There is no question that he is refering to man created in the image of God in chapter 1 as well as Adam out from whom a woman was built from his rib.I think a dangerous assumption of your argument is that chapter one and chapter two should say everything in the same way exactly. Can you see the weakness of arguing that Adam of Genesis two is not said to be in the likeness/image of God ? I'll come back to this point perhaps, latter. I won't comment on this yet because I don't yet fully follow this. I think the problem is trying to harmonize them totally. Because you can't you introduce concepts as a cure which I think are far worse then what they are designed to rectify.When the skeptics gleefully point out that the two accounts seem not to mesh together, I am inclined to agree up to a point and bare that embaressment.I take both accounts as the word of God, as the truth. And I am suspicious that it is intentionally evasive on the details that we would like to see consistent. We humans glory in being able to arrive at commonality from diversity. We are proud of our ability to derive one law from different effects. And the Holy Spirit does not always play along with this human tendency. Maybe we should not try to do this. Maybe we should not sacrifice the obvious truth for the sake of 100% harmonization.Jesus is recorded as resurrecting in a physical body. On the other hand He appeared in a locked room as if to just materialize out of nothing. If I argue that that was a different Jesus I may think I have solved some contradictions. But I have actually now created greater problems.I'd rather trust both records without feeling I have to reconcile them to the last degree. Christ rose and ate fish before them and He became a life giving Spirit too (1 Cor. 15:45) and came into a locked room without the use of a door or window.Likewise, of course the man in Genesis 2 is the man in Genesis 1. So let's just admit that if we have to. We can speculate imperfectly. That is just our imperfect interpretations.It seems that the two accounts are linked together in Genesis 5. What is this about a light period ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Because that in Genesis 1:26,27 was the CREATION of man. "And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness ..." (1:26) ... And God CREATED man in His own image; in the image of God He CREATED him ..." (v.27) Do you have anything from Scripture stating that before this creation on the 6th day God already created man not in the image of God ? But you believe that that man is not the man of Genesis chapter 2 formed from the dust of the earth ?Do you believe that the man who knew his wife and begat Cain (Gen. 4:1) is the man who was driven out of the garden of Eden (Gen. 3:23,24) ?Yes? No?Do you believe that the man driven out of the garden of Eden was the man formed with the dust of the earth in Genesis 2:7 ?Yes? No?The same father of Cain is the father of Seth. And that man was created in the likeness of God (Gen. 5:1). He and his wife were Mr. and Mrs. Adam if you will. (They were the Adam family). "Male and female He created them, ... and called their name Adam" (5:2)In the next breath and in a seamless manner this man "Mr. Adam" if you will, lived 130 years and begot Seth (v.3)[/b]The flow of history is from Adam "made ... in the likenesss of God" to "... and begot a son in his likeness according to his image, and he called his name Seth" (5:3)The father of Cain (4:1) knew his wife a subsequent time and also fathered Seth (4:25).It says that "Adam knew his wife AGAIN; and she gave birth to a son and called his name Seth; for, [she said], God has appointed me ANOTHER seed instead of Abel, because Cain slew him." (4:25 my emphasis) Adam (Gen 5:1) who was "made in the likeness of God" fathered Abel, Cain, and Seth. Genealogies skip people in the Hebrew Bible. And the fact that Genesis 5:3 omits Abel and Cain does not mean that this Adam was not also their father. Genesis 4:25 proves that the father of Seth knew his wife "AGAIN" and that "ANOTHER" descendent was the result "instead of Abel" who had been murdered by his brother.The dad of Seth was made in the likeness of God (5:1). And prior to him living 130 years to father Seth, he and his wife had been pronounced by God as "Adam". Yes, as far as the creatures we are told who had been made or created on previous days.According to the account in chapter one, the seer or revelator wants the reader to see man as at the top of the pinnacle of all animals created on previous days.God had a special conference. And with this creature man He alone is seen saying "Let Us make man in Our image ..." A more intimate involvement. I don't know. The sequence of the events may be general. And the theme of man's unique place among the other animals is AGAIN highlighted.You see, in both cases all of the other creatures are spiritually and metaphysically BENEATH man. The manner in which this is stressed is not the same. And it is difficult to harmanize the mechanics of it.Both accounts stress that on the pinnacle of life's pyramid (so to speak) man occupies the topmost position. That is not an insignificant revelation for human beings to know.And if there are descrepancies in WHEN and WHEN NOT the other animals were made or created, I think God in His wisdom is hinting that it makes no difference.I said, we are experts at missing the point. Do not strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.Subtly the focus changes from man to all the other ANIMALS ... "But WHEN did God make the animals? Before Man or After Man or a little bit of each. We just don't understand."My sense is that it is beside the main point. MAN is in the image of God. And MAN is at the top of all other created lives on the earth. His having dominion over them proves this. And his designating names for them ALSO proves this.Why did Paul caution Timothy not to get caught up in "endless geneologies" but to pay attention to God's economy which is in faith ? (1 Timothy 1:4) God's economy has to do with receiving God in Christ as divine life. Had God wanted to be clear about when the animals were made whether before or after the first man, perhaps He would have made both chapter one and chapter two tell the same story in the same way.He did not. And I choose believe both accounts as God's speaking. Genesis 5:1 says Adam was made in the likeness of God. And the flow of history seamlessly proceeds to identify that Adam as the father of Seth. I do not find your way of looking at the matter "easier" by any means. I think the price paid for trying to figure if every single existing animal preceeded or followed Adam is not worth the alternative intepretation you propose.I do not shy away from independent thinking. I judge the concepts on their merits for the far greater part. And my reasons for questioning your view have been the result of my own examination of the verses and comparing them to your thoughts.And there is no shame in benefitting from the labors in the Bible of predecessors. It seems pretty obvious to me that Paul is uniting the two chapters to build his case. There is no hint that he regards the passages as refering to different instances of the first man created. I think the strength of his case rests upon the fact that he is talking about the initial creation of man and the initial creation of woman.If you reason that one instances is the initial creation of human beings but the other is not, I think that confuses the issue and weakens his teaching. I do not believe we are told how long ago "In the beginning" was. And I understand an unspecified interval of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. I believe in an ancient history of the being who became Satan and a pre-Adamic world of some kind.I do not insist that the universe came into existence 6,000 years ago according to Ussher's famous chronology. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Morning ICANT,I have only enough time to reply to about half of your post. I'll examine the rest latter. If I ignore chapter divisions and simply refer to them as location indicators:Seth is born as a result of Adam's additional intimacy with his wife (4:25). In the next sentence this Seth is said to be the father of Enosh. (4:26)Moving forward 5:6 repeats that Seth is the father of Enosh. And this Seth's father, backing up now, is Adam.The line from the man Adam knowing his wife an ADDITIONAL time to bring forth Seth the father of Enosh is very clear to me. Hold on. Do you mean "THE TEXT" that I am quoting or THE TEXT that you are quoting ? The TEXT which I am quoting from is Genesis 5:1,2. The TEXT that you then proceed to quote stating "the text says: is Genesis 1:27. They share identical information though worded differently: And Genesis 5:1,2 says this: " ... When God create Adam, He made him in the likeness of God. Male and female He created them, and He blessed them and called their name Adam, on the day when they were created." There is little to exploit to build a case that they are not talking about the exact same event. I am afraid that the exploitation of anything from these two passages to build a case that they are talking about different events is really imaginative and shaky. I have no problem with that. Genesis 5:1,2 is discribing the same event. Building a case that they are not speaking of the same thing is at best highly speculative (trying to remain polite here). You entertain an artificial expectation that every word has to be exactly the same. That is to me, an unreasonable expectation.So it did not say "in the day that God formed man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul .... etc. etc. etc."It is not required that it speak the EXACT same words in the EXACT same way. I think trying to exploit this characteristic of Genesis 5:1,2 is too weak. I'll verify that latter. But that they were God's kind seems to be more the impact of the passage. But this could be a small point.I don't understand why you want to say Genesis 1:26,27 is refering to something other than Genesis 5:1,2 and 2:7. No it does not. I fully agree. Nevertheless, if you do NOT believe that you create a problem. You have to explain how the Seth of Genesis 4:26 is not the Seth of Genesis 5:6.Not only that, you also, I think, have to explain that the Enosh of Genesis 4:26 is also another coincidental Enosh or than the Enosh of Genesis 5:6.Not only that, you also have to explain that Genesis 4:26 beginning with the word "And" as in "And to Seth also was born ..." is not a continuation of the history of previous verse 25. And previous verse 25 says Adam went AGAIN into his wife and replaced, as it were, Abel with Seth.Is it worth it ? For what are you going through these gymnastics ? Is it to figure out which animals were made before Adam or after Adam ?I would suggest to just live with the animal problem and accept the obvious. " The things that are hidden belong to Jehovah our God; but the things that are revealed, to us and our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." (Deut. 29:29)Exactly what the mechanics are with animals and how and when they came about so as to harmonize chapter one and two, I'll leave as the hidden things belonging to God. I think that the priorities of the writer are different from what you might expect. Your priorities may expect that Cain and Abel should be mentioned. The writer's priorities may lie elsewhere.We told of Adam " ... and he begot [more] sons and daughters." (v.4) . Without the supplied word [more] it would literally be that he begot sons and daughters. So we know that others not named in the geneology are also his descendents.I honestly think that the writer's and the Holy Spirit's intention is to focus on the Adam to Seth connection. Cain and Abel are simply not listed. Considerable discussion was devoted to Cain and Abel previously. If we start down that road, I also can say doctoring occured so that the Seth mentioned in 5:6 is not the Seth mentioned in 5:7 the very next verse. I don't think the appeal to text doctoriing can remove the clarity of the man of Genesis 2:7 being the Adam, the father of Cain, Abel, Seth, and other sons and daughters (Gen 5:4). Why not? Is it because there are two accounts which do not repeat the same words in the same way ? I don't buy that. I just believe that it is written from another perspective with another set of priorities.I bet you have been through many debates about the harmonization of chapter one and two. I can bet that none were satisfactory. I am sure if I proposed some speculations you could show weaknesses with all of them. I could too for they are speculations.I think I will spend more time to explore why the Spirit reveals to us this double testimony to the creation of man.Do you recognize that the man of Genesis 2 is called the FIRST man in First Corinthians? "The first man is out of the earth, earthy; the second man is out of heaven." (1 CDor. 15:47)Can't you put two and two together and assume that the man created in Genesis 1:26,27 is that man made out of the earth without Genesis 1:26,27 having to say the exact same thing as is said in 2:7 in exactly the same way ? I don't think the account is exhaustive. It obviously is not meant to be an exhuastive description of how God did everything involved in causing the world to exist. Why do I have to ? Why can I not trust in God that He has spoken two paradoxical accounts which are true ?I have to return latter. I am called away by a child wanting breakfast. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Your assumption: Because the man in Genesis 2:7 is said to be made of the dust of the ground and the man in Genesis 1:26 DOES NOT mention dust of the ground, therefore it cannot be the same man.I respectfully regard this as a false assumption.
The first human man is being described in both passages. Your assumption: Beause chapter one concludes with the creation of man after the making or creation of lower lives and Genesis 2:7 stresses a different sequence and does not mention day 6, therefore, the two passages cannot be talking about the same man.I respectfully regard this as a false assumption.
The same first man is being spoken about under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is a difference. I do not regard it as a huge difference.
And could only offer some speculations.
What is written is the word of God. My speculations upon what is written are only that, imperfect human speculations.And the more we debate about it the more I am inclined to believe the passages do not contradict one another as much as they contradict man's reasonings.Too bad for us. That is another assumption which I do not share. Not being able to reconcile every detail of the two passages does NOT have to mean that two different events are being revealed.Let me ask you if you have ever come across an article by Robert Govett entitled "The Twofoldeness of Divine Truth"? If I can find it among my books I would like to quote a few paragraphs of it for you. ICANT, the word concerning male and female in Genesis 1:26,27 is brief. The details of this matter are not revealed in THAT particular passage.In Genesis 2:7 it becomes very important that the details of male and female be given special attention.The difference in emphasis does not mean two first men are being revealed. I would like to dicuss this in more detail latter for the formation of the wife from the man is a window into the very eternal plan of God.Out of the one came two. Then the two were brought together to be one. This is a little window into the whole revelation of the Bible. I'll have to continue latter.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

ICANT,I wrote above: I will propose some ideas on reconcilation. I do not expect that they will satisfy you completely. They may not satisfy me completely.But give me a little time and I will propose some ideas toward limited reconciliation.

ICANT,You are really causing me to throw myself into Genesis. That can't be wrong. And sometimes I'm not sure I understand what your position is when you say you make no such assumption.I would like therefore to ask you a few questions.1.) Do you believe that an individual female can be deduced from these words (Gen. 1:26), who was the first mother of all other human beings? " ... in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Gen. 1:27)2.) Do you believe that before Eve, who is called "the mother of all living" (Genesis 2:20) there existed other prior living human beings ?3.) Before Adam was put into a deep sleep for the extraction and building of his wife would this statement be true? " ... male and female He created them." (Genesis 1:27)4.) After the sleep of Adam and the extraction and building of his wife would this statement be true? " ... male and female He created them." (Gen. 1:27)5.) If the answer to question #4 is YES is it possible that Genesis 2:18 through 25 could have been events to occur on day # 6 of Genesis chapter 1 ?6.) Is it possible that the seer, prophet, or revelator of Genesis chapter two could be recounting to us things as they were SHOWN to him or her without being aware of other creation accounts ?7.) If that seer or prophet or visionary was faithfully recounting to us things AS THEY WERE REVEALED to him or her, would that person be being deceptive or be being faithful and truthful ?8.) Is it possible that the forming of animals from the ground in chapter two is being related to us WITHOUT REGARD to what DAY thier FORMATION occured ?9.) Is it possible that the animals being brought to Adam for naming in Genesis 2, is related to us WITHOUT REGARD to on what day those animals were created ?Is that POSSIBLE?10.) Is it possible that it is more important to the author of Genesis chapter 2 that we see Adam as the one who named the animals RATHER than we see on WHAT DAY each of those animals came into existence ?12.) Does God have within His RIGHT to reveal so much to one seer and so much to another seer and simultaneously LEAVE OUT other information to BOTH seers ?13.) If BOTH seers or prophets pass on to us WHAT THEY WERE SHOWN ONLY, is that still a revelation of truth from God ?14.) Is it possible that the geneology is tracing a line from Adam to Jesus Christ that it would omit person's who died and produced no offspring ?15.) Is it possible that the geneology tracing a line from Adam to Jesus Christ would omit someone who SPIRITUALLY is unworthy in God's eyes, to be associated with Jesus Christ ?Your thoughts on these few questions would help me to understand your position.ThanksEdited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

It was not my question whether it was mentioned or not. My question was could a particular women be "deduced" by you from the verse ? The question was whether one women could be deduced from the passage or not. I didn't ask if that was the only deduction one could make.On this point I am still puzzled as to your belief. Thankyou. I suppose this means that any of the one or many proposed woman of Genesis 1:26 could not have preceeded Eve.Either she is indicated in Genesis 1:26 or the women in 1:26 would have to be her descendents.But since 1:26,27 refers to the creation of human male and female, my guess is that Adam's wife Eve is indicated in 1:26. How do you know that? It simply says that God created man in His image and according to His likeness. Nothing is said about the method of creation.Silence as to the method does not mean the woman could not have been made as described in chapter 2. How do you know that ?Verse 21 says that God created on the fifth day "great sea creatures" and "every winged bird" in addition to other life which swarmed the waters. You cannot insist what moments did or did not pass between these acts.Can you insist that winged birds and sea creatures had to be created at the exact same moment ? I don't think you can.And I don't think you can insist that male and female God had to have created at the same moment. Are you saying that women were created ex nihilo but the mother of all living was not ? "Created", "formed" , and "made" all can and have been used in the bringing of humanity into existence.Even the spiritual component of man is said to have been "formed" within man - Zechariah 12:1.And I think you are creating problems if you say that the woman builded from the rib of Adam was not a part of the creation of humanity.I mentioned that chapter two is a window into the eternal purpose of God. I mean in the sense that it typifies the one new man being created in Christ Jesus on the cross. Out from Him God builds His Body and His Bride.That counter part of Christ is created in Christ Jesus (Eph 2:15).On one hand the church as the new man is builded - "In whom you also are being builded together into a dwelling place of God in spirit" (Eph. 2:22)On the other hand the new man is created - "Abolishing in His flesh the law of the commandments in ordinaces, that He might CREATE the two in Himself into one new man ..." (Eph. 2:15)On one hand the corporate "new man" is being renewed into existence - "And have put on the new man, which is being renewed unto full knowledge ..." (Col.3:10) On the other hand this corporate "new man" is has been created by God - " ... put on the new man, which being renewed ... according to the image of Him who CREATED him, where there cannot be Greeek and Jew, circumsicion and uncircumcision, ... etc. ... but Christ is all and in all." (Col. 3:10,11)The Wife of the second man Christ is builded and created.
The type of the Wife as seen in Eve, is builded and created also. "Male and female He created [bara] them" (Genesis 5:2) refers not only to Genesis 1:26 but Genesis 2:22,23 as well.The Hebrew word bara may be the only word suitable to discribe creation ex nihilo. But it is not reserved only for that definition. It does have some overlaping usage with words that would not mean bringing into existence with no previous material.It is understandable that there is no human word in Hebrew exclusively reserved for that definition. The concept of ex nihilo is an idea that man would scarcely have thought of without the aid of divine revelation.Two different accounts of man coming into existence using different words, I think, should be viewed as emphazing different spiritual themes perhaps. There is no need to jump the conclusion that two different events or two humanities are involved. I agree with the no. I don't think all other living forms effect it one way or another.Before the building of the woman it could be said that God created him male only. After the building of the woman it could be said God created them male and female. I think it is simple. This does not add up. You are saying that God brought Adam and his wife into existence and at latter time created male and female humanity.Does that make sense ?You are saying that God brought the mother of all living into existence and then some time latter some of her descendents were created out of nothing.If she was the mother of ALL living then the male and female created ex nihilo would be living but not from Eve. And that would make it untrue that Eve was the mother of ALL living.That would argue that Eve is the mother of all living except the living people created in Genesis 1:26,27 who came ex nihilo. I think your theory ends up with two humanities. You have now all the descendents of Eve and a second line of all the descendents of the first female created in Genesis 1:26,27. Do you believe that Eve the mother of all living had descendents before the sixth day ?I would like to skip down to the 8th question now. I take that as a no. I take that as a no. Thanks. I guess that is a no. I don't know if that is yes or no.
I only regard you as saying only one seer was involved taking a dictation. You made an issue, I think, of Cain and Abel not being mentioned in Genesis 5. I thought that you interpreted that as evidence that the Adam of chapter two is not the man created in the image of God in chapter 1 somehow.But it has been awhile and this is really a maze you have developed. Incorrect. This is not a statement by me of the ineffectiveness of the wonderful far reaching grace of God.It is true that many unsavory characters were surprisingly listed in the geneology of Jesus Christ in Matthew. There is no question that the grace of God is evidenced.However, it is also true that some people were omitted. For example in the section of the kings from David to the deportation to Bacylon, Jehoiakim was omitted in Matthew 1:11. Compare verse 11 to 1 Chron. 3:15-16. The reason could be because Jehoiakim was made king by Pharoah of Egypt and collected taxes for Egypt I don't know how you know that. I do not rely on Ussher's chronological calculationsOnly 130 years of the father of Cain elapsed within which the same man begot Seth. So Seth is a modern man but Cain is not ?I don't follow you. It seems to be boiling down to the interpretation of YOM [English day] in Genesis, I think.Thanks for your replies.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I do not believe that because some things written in chapter two which are not also written in chapter one, two different beginnings of humanity is what is revealed.I also do not believe that before God created man and commanded them to multiply in Genesis 1:28 they had already been made, formed, created, shaped, what have you, and multiplied.Your interpretation seems to suggest multiplication before the creation of man and the mandate to do so. I do not think that because "Eve" was not used in Genesis one therefore two different initializations of humans on earth is being taught - one in chapter one and another in chapter two. I do not see how your quotations effected the issue. And "mother of all living" and "mother living" add up to Eve being everyone's great - grand matriarch.The information is interesting but supplies no additional credence to the matter, IMO. That is your assertion. I have not seen it justified yet. And I am considering your evidence seriously. I don't believe that because Eve is not mentioned by name in chapter one that that chapter could not be talking about the first woman created. I see only two possible alternatives with your interpretation.1.) Before the creation of woman and the multiplication of them another woman was created previously who is called the mother of all living.2.) After the creation of woman and the multiplication of them a woman was created and assigned to be the mother of all living.Both theories are unsatisfactory to me. I you have a third possibilty you can explain it. In my Recovery Version Genesis 5:1 reads this way: "This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created Adam, He made him in the likeness of God."

​

And a footenote at the bottom of the page says [Lit., In the day]. And Genesis 2:4 reads: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When Jehohavh God made earth and heaven ..."

​

And a footnote at the bottom on "When Jehovah" says [ Lit., in the day] I know that you would not insist that yom has only one possible meaning. So your view depends on how one understands Genesis 2:4 and 5:1, I think for the most part. That doesn't prove that we know man and woman were created together in the same instant. Even if no material WAS used it STILL does not prove that the male and the female were [bara] created together in the same moment.No pre-existing material used neither proves that the great sea creatures and the winged birds were created at one moment. We cannot know that "every living animal that moves, with which the waters swarm" (1:21) were all created together in one moment. Okay.Still you cannot know that a male and a female whale were created at the same moment. You can only speculate. You can only express your preference of belief. Maybe I'll come back to this latter. I see. To state this up front would have saved some time. I suspected something like this was your view.I think I can stop here with this view. I am aware of many of these nuances. How do you know that ? We are discussing various interpretations of the Scripture. I have plenty of support. I already gave you some.
Here is more: These are not just nice words of Paul to be read at wedding ceremonies. He says that he speaks concerning Christ and the church. His burden is deeper than just giving good marriage advice.The church is Christ's own body which He nourishes and cherishes with the rhema of the water of the living word. She came out of Christ as Eve came out of Adam. And she is presented to Him for His eternal romantic union.The Bible concludes with a marriage of the Redeeming Godman and a city New Jerusalem which He has produced out of His redemptive death and resurrection. This is like the sleep of Adam to produce the bone of his bone and the flesh of his flesh for the building of Eve.Do you think we should start a whole new thread on this matter ? I am shocked that you have not become a little familiar with the typology of Genesis chapter two.Do you think it is insignificant that Paul quotes Genesis 2:24,25?Zero support ?? Zero support that the typology of Genesis chapter two touches on God's eternal purpose ? Genesis 5:2. And you will react with an assertion of your own that Genesis 5:2 cannot be refering to the previous history of Adam just as been discribed in chapter two. You do this based on your interpretation of the YOM there.Genesis 5:2 is my ground for saying that God created the woman. "Male and female He created them ..."And the reason I know Moses is speaking of the Adam of chapter two is because the flow of history in the next verse continues quite normally: "Male and female He created them, and He blessed them and called their name Adam, on the day when they were created.

​

AND ... ADAM lived one hundred and thirty years and begot a [son] in his likeness according to his image, and he called his name Seth." The clock does not stop between verse 2 and 3. We do not suddenly transcend into some existential realm of abstraction.
Verse 2 speaks of Adam's creation, male and female CREATION, and the very next breath tells us how long Adam lived before he fathered Seth. Do you read and write ancient Hebrew fluenty ?I do not. I depend upon scholars who do. And they do not always agree among themselves. I have been praying about this felloswhip. Yes it is different. But man is a three part being - spirit and soul and body (1 Thess. 5:23). So I would not be suprised that some of each would be envolved in man's creation.What I think I hear you saying is that the man and woman formed in chapter two were pre-human. I think you are going to paint yourself into a corner on the ledge of a cliff.In fact much more burden of Moses seems apparent in writing chapter two through five about this so-called proto, pre-human false start. If he is not the real thing why didn't Moses extend his talk from Genesis 1:26,27 discribing the history of your "Real McCoy" man and woman ?Now I have an artistic temperment. And I am all for innovation, originality, and not following blindly the traditional herd.But I think you were informed rightly in so far that Genesis does not talk about two different starts of the human race.I have to stop here.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

No. It means that I do not agree with your interpretation of what the Bible says in this instance.For many centries some brothers in Christ have told each other "Well then, you do not believe the Bible."This is usually rhetorical talk and a bit condescending. But it is ok. I understand we each feel strongly about different interpretations.Incidently, thanks for sharing your testimony below. It was very interesting. You were born again in 1949. I was born the first time in 1949. Of course that isn't likely to make you willing to change your thoughts on my account, and all the more so if you are writing a book.May the Lord bless your labors on that book. I hope it exalts Christ. I have already explained this. Rather then we repeat another cycle I would rather talk about how the two accounts agree on the matter of man being created in the image of God.(I will however study the matter of the "day". You deserve some more clarification from me there. I am studying that issue.Matthew 19:4,5 says: I suspect that you will point out that the word "them" is supplied by the translators. I suspect you will read it as " ... He who created from the beginning made them male and female.But I think Jesus is refering to both Genesis 1:26,27 and Genesis 2:7,18-25 . And Genesis 5:1 says "Male and female He created them."I don't think there is the SLIGHTEST hint with Jesus Christ that there were TWO bringing into existence the human race on ANY level. I see not the slightest clue that Jesus regarded a fundamental difference in man arriving from God's creating hand in Genesis one and a different arriving from God's creative activity in chapter two.Not a clue. Not a hint. I am sorry. I respect that you are writing a book on it. I respect your intense love for the word of God. That is not a problem. You have made it a problem.You are saying that before the creation of woman and God's command that humans multiply, there was another woman made not quite in the image of God who was the mother of all living.I dare say that more reference is made in Scripture to this "second class" - proto woman then your alledged REAL created woman of Genesis 1. If there are two greater weight is assigned to the second one in Scripture.The two accounts show one thing and leave a detail ambiguous. What is the ambiguous matter ? It is when the other creatures came into existence.What is the emphasized matter? It is that humanity is made in the image of God. Let me explain it this way.The grass has no face, neither do the herbs nor the trees. Starting from the animal life, we have seen that the fish has a face, but not very close to man's face. Next came the birds, the cattle, and the beasts. Then came man whose face is very much like God.What I mean is that we are told that God made man in His image. The expression of living things is in the face. The faces in Genesis develop more and more until you have man's face who is in the image of God. I do not mean that image is an outward physical matter. But I mean that in the face is mainly the ascension of all the living things until you arrive at man made in the image of God.Now we come to the second account in Genesis two. We have essentially the same matter as far as God and man is concerned. All the animals are brought forth to man. None are suitable to be his counterpart. None match his unique being. That is until the woman is brought forth from him in his sleep. She is bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh. She is woman the reflection of man.But here is the most important point about chapter two. Man was placed before the tree of life. This has to do with God as life entering into man in God's image.This is like a glove and a human hand. A glove is made in the image of a human hand. It is made that way so that the human hand may fit comfortably into the glove. Then the glove becomes the vessel of the living hand. And the hand becomes the life of the glove. Together the glove and the hand mutually coordinate together.You do great damage to the Bible's revelation by teaching that the man in chapter two is not in the image of God. You do more damage by saying the woman in chapter two is not in the image of God. They were like the glove. And the divine life of God Himself signified in the tree of life was like the living hand meant to fit inside the glove.Man is created in a "God shaped" way spiritually and emotionally. Man was created as a living vessel to contain the uncreated divine Person of God as eternal life.Chapter two also shows man in the image of God in a deeper way. Man in chapter two is a living vessel created to come to the divine uncreated Person to receive Him as eternal life. The divine hand fits into the created glove made in the hand's image.In one chapter you have the ascension of living things to arrive at man the expression of the image of God.In chapter two you have the exhuastion of living things until you arrive at that taken out of man and brought back to him, as the expression and image of God.And in chapter two you have man as a created vessel (male and female) brought before the divine life of God signified in the tree of life. The uncreated Person is to fit inside the created person made in His image for a mutual incorporation of God and man. These are two angles only. The same creation of humanity is represented in the two angles. I'll return to that after more study.I will devote the next post to elaborate on man in the image of God to contain the life of God.In a sense chapter one shows what God intends man to do and be. But chapter two shows HOW man will do and be this matter. Man must receive the divine life of God to be united with God in an "organic" union. Man the vessel must receive the divine Person as the content to be mingled with God. I did not say He was unable. I said we cannot prove from the record that He did or did not create in that way.It is important to His eternal purpose that we see that Adam as the type of Christ was the SOURCE from which his wife came into existence !!The Son of God is the SOURCE out from which the eternal city, the kingdom of God and the Body of Christ as His Wife, the New Jerusalem comes into existence.I wish you would read "The Glorious Church" by Watchman Nee.In fact I need to re-read it myself. ICANT, should we go through the Bible and find every reference to God creating human beings and decide they ALL refer to different events.Which chapter does this refer to ? "The burden of the word of Jehovah concerning Israel. Thus declares Jehovah, who stretches forth the heavens and lays the foundation of the earth and forms the spirit of man within him." (Zech. 12:1)Which creation of man does this refer to? Is that your first class created man or your second class previously made from dust man ?I believe it refers to either chapter, Genesis 1 or 2. But you teach that before man was created a man was made from the dust had descendents and multiplied in the earth. They have to do with what I said. Chapter two is a window into the eternal purpose of God to bring forth from Christ His counterpart.We were saved for the counterpart. Even more we were CREATED for that counterpart.It has to do with the new creation which comes out of the resurrection of Christ the one who "slept" in death and rose to produce from Himself His Wife. It has to do with the new creation in Christ. What about in the sleeping of Adam and the extraction of part of him to BUILD up a wife for him ? What about "they mystery is great. But I speak concerning Christ and the church."? New Jerusalem comes down out of Heaven from God. She has come out of God. She is built up as a city expressing God's glory. This city bears the glory of God and is the temple of God. This city in the end of the Bible is the Wife of the incarnate Redeeming God. She is produced out of the death and resurrection of the second man Christ.This city is out destiny. This city is the destination of all the believers as sons of God. We were created for this city. We are redeemed, regenerated, born anew to be transformed into this city. This city is why God created a universe. This city as Christ's Wife is the reason why God created a universe. So now we have MAN made from dust not in the image of God and multiplying with descendents BEFORE MAN is created by God, incidently with no soul.This labyrinth is a "system of error" (Eph. 4:14). But you have my respect that you possess a training and a skill that I don't have.But in the regard to the creation of man, I am sure that you have arrived at a "system of error."Ie. Before MAN was CREATED a MAN was FORMED from Dust who was not in the image of God. He and his wife had descendents and they multiplied in the earth. Sometime latter MAN was Created and Female was created, BUT ... they had no SOULS !!Brother, FELLOWSHIP is good. Have you presented this for fellowship with others experienced in the Christian life as yourself ?I don't think I am beyond being deceived. Sometimes I have to take something I think I see in the Bible for fellowship with other brothers for their sense of what I have arrived at.I have to stop here this morning. Okay. But you said Adam means MANKIND. So you have a pre-MANKIND humans ?Well, some people believe in that. Well, the greater number of bibilcal references at key points in the Bible is with them in view. Now if they are not as important as modern man why is so much more said in Scripture about them ?? But why would the Bible refer to them so much more than to your alledged souless CREATED humans in Genesis 1 ? You arrive at a MAN not created in the image of God whom the bible refers to quite a lot and even calls him the first man.And you arrive at another MAN created in the image of God some time latter who has NO SOUL.This is a very bad system of error.

Thanks Bertot,I'll be back latter. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Concerning Genessi 2:7 YES
When the breath of spirit of God united with the body formed from the dust the result was that man became a living soul. The three parts of man are indicated there - spirit and soul and body. "And the God of peace Himself sanctify you wholly, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Thess. 5:23)The man of Genesis 2 is not another man in kind from the man created by God in Genesis 1:26,27.There is NO man in the entire Bible who is not made in the image of God. There is no man in existence who is not made in the image of God.Some racist theologians supporting slavery in the US taught that the African black man had no soul. These teachings that divide humans up into those with souls and those without are heretical and dangerous.I am not sure if you are teaching this way. The Recovery Version says that He "built" the rib into a woman. This is a revelation into the building of the New Jerusalem out from Christ's death and resurrection. "In whom you also are being builded together into a dwelling place of God in spirit" (Eph.2:22) "You yourselves also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house into a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Peter. 2:5)"You are God's farm; God's building" (1 Cor. 3:9)" ... I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." (Matt. 16:18)Eve being bult from the life element of Adam, his rib, is a window into the building up of the dwelling place of God, the church and New Jerusalem, from the death and resurrestion of the Son of God. I am accustomed to this translation: "And Jehovah God built the rib, which He had taken from the man, into a woman and brought her to the man."YES.
And this man and woman are not other than the man and woman created in Genesis 1:26,27. Two angles are presented with two different emphasises. YES. And this is the man created in the image of God in Genesis 1:26,27. It is not some other man previously made, who was not created, or some such theory. Genesis 4:1 says that Eve conceived and bore Cain. YES I disagree with the interpretation that any of this indicates another human race as is describd in Genesis 1:26,27.I disagree with the interpretation that Genesis 2 cannot mean that God created them male and female as is plainly indicated in Genesis 5:1.I disagree that the passages in Genesis chapter 2 refer to a pre-Adamic event or represents a pre-Adamic human being.I disagree that God had two economies going on the earth with two different human races, one made in Genesis 2 and a subsequent one created in Genesis 1.I strongly disagree with the interpretation that there is "zero" evidence for the indication of Christ and the church symbolized in chapter 2.I disagree that "This is the book of the generations of Adam. When [or in the day] God created Adam, He made him in the likeness of God" (Gen. 5:1) in any manner whatsoever refers TWO bringings into existence of man on the earth.I disagree with the interpretation that Gen. 5:1 forces the reader to understand that another day of light is refered to beside the 6th day when we are told that God created human beings.And I think it not necessarily wrong to view ONE creation of humanity on earth just because someone taught you that when you were young. Exactly. And if we are told in the Bible that the first man Adam is a type of Christ and you teach that the Adam of Genesis 2 is not the man created in the image and likeness of God in chapter 1, you terribly confuse and obscure the matter and weaken the truth. "For since through man came death, through man also came the resurrection of the dead." (1 Cor. 15:21)Obscuring this with an opinion about Genesis 1:26,27 refering to a different creation of man than Genesis 2:7 throws Romans into a tailspin. To fit Romans into the babyrinth of your theology weakens Paul's apostolic teaching which exalts Christ. "For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive" (Rom. 15:22)Obscuring this by teaching that this was the Adam made before MAN was created fogs this truth up so much, one does not know where he is. I think it weakens Paul's Christ exalting teaching of Romans and throws the follower of your theology into a labyrinth of obscurity for the sake of figuring out when animals were made. "The first man is out of the earth, earthly, the second man is out of heaven." (Rom. 15:47) Adding to this that there are TWO human races created in the Bible one made and a latter one created without a soul, throws this clear revelation into a maze of questionings and geneologies weakening the truth.All the constrast between Adam and Christ in Romans become obscure as soon as you introduce another first man, created "elsewhere" in Gen. 1:26,27, who had no soul.I think these interpretation distract from Christ rather than exalt Christ. They tend to distract me into questionings about animals, uncreated women, souless humans created in the image of God, TWO human races in the word of God.There is such a thing as deeper teaching which should not be pre-maturely administered to those accustomed to the milk of the word. But I do not think you present here something more "meaty" and solid. I think you have something wrong. The church is God's POEMO, masterpiece, "workmanship" (KJV) (Eph. 2:10). But she has many aspects. She is also called the new man. And the new man was created in Christ.So saying that Eve or the church was formed or does not insist that Eve or the church was not also created.In fact Christ in resurrection as the Head of the church is called "the beginning of the creation of God" (Rev.3:14) The creation of God in Revelation 3:14 is the new creation of man indwelt with by the divine life of the resurrected Christ. This is the beginning of His creation of the church also revealed in Colossians 1:18: "And He is the Head of the Body, the church; He is the beginning, the Firstborn from the dead, that He Himself might have the first place in all things." (Col. 1:18) So the builded church is also called "the creation of God" of which Christ is the Head and the Beginning in resurrection.In fact if any man be in Christ he is a new creation: "So then if anyone is in Christ, [he] is a new creation,. The old things have passed away; behold, they have become new." (2 Cor. 4:17)All this is to prove that though the coming about of the church is a building, a forming, a making, it is also a new creation.And hence we have two sides of the coming into existence of Eve. Male and female God created the human race. But on the other hand the woman was built and the man was formed from the dust. I don't think for the sake of Matthew 19:4 you should deduce TWO human races with TWO different beginings in the Scripture.Colossian 1:16 says that because of Christ all things were created: "Because in Him all things were created, in the heavens, and on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities; all things have been created thrugh Him and unto Him." (Col. 1:16)Are you going to say woman is not on the earth and was not created through Christ ? Are you going to teach the Apostle Paul that Eve on the earth out of Adam's rib was not CREATED through Christ ?Eph. 3:9 says that God created all things: " ... the mystery ..., which throughout the ages was hidden in God Who created all things ..." (Eph. 3:9)Are you going to instruct Paul that Eve was not created by God ?
Are you going to inform Paul that the man in Genesis 2 was not created by the God who created all things ? " ... in Him all things were created, in the heavens, AND ON THE EARTH. the visible and the invisible ..." (Col. 1:15)Was the woman built from Adam's rib visible? Was Eve visible ? " ... God, who created all things" (Eph. 3:9) Is Eve one of "all things" ?I'll be back latter. The Lord be with your spirit. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Do you think that the man created in Genesis 1:26,27 did not have a rib because a rib was not mentioned ?Do you think that because sleep was not mentioned in Genesis 1:26,27 therefore that man did not sleep ?You are building an unwarrented theology on these verses because of silence. You say man in Gen. 1:26 has no soul because "man became a living soul" is not mentioned. Or you say man in gen 1:26 is souless because the soul is not mentioned.Yes, I can indeed think what I wish concening the truth of Scripture. But this is rhetorical tit for tat. Let's get into the issues of interpretation. "We are His masterpiece [the church] CREATED in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2:10). Like the woman out of Adam, Christ's Body is both formed and created. Yes, me also. And James said that all the teachers make mistakes. I think you have made one. Neither does "of SOME" appear. Is there a person named in the Bible who does not have Eve as an eventual mother ?Who ?I have to break up this long exchange into sections.