Adam was created on the 3rd day

quote:

---

But the creation of man should not contradict the order of events in Genesis one. Namely the implication that man was created first, then the plants and the animals.

---

Actually the order of events in Genesis 1 (written by a priest) should not contradict the creation of man (Garden of Eden story).The author of Genesis 1 had the Adam and Eve story to work from. The focus of Genesis 2 is the Garden of Eden, Adam, and Eve; not the specifics of creation.So Genesis 1 is the order in which creation took place from the author's perspective after reading the story of the Garden. Putting the creation of Adam on day 3 would conflict with the author of Genesis 1.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

By stating such, the inverse of what I said, are you saying that the Garden of Eden story takes precedence over Genesis 1? Please clarify. If that is the case, one would be the accurate account and the other in error.

---

The Garden of Eden story existed first (Documentary Hypothesis). I'm not sure that that means it takes precedence, but it supposedly came first.The Garden of Eden Story was probably written before 722 BCE while the kingdoms were separate and Genesis 1 is considered to be written between 722 BCE and 609 BCE. IOW, after the fall of the Northern Kingdom.An author has a purpose in his/her writing. Each of these authors had a different purpose. I don't see that a different purpose makes one in error.The Garden of Eden story does not read as a story written to give the order in which things were considered to be created. Genesis 1 does.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

What Genesis 1 does is establish the order of when the creation of things were completed

---

I think that's what I said in Message 9.

quote:

---

Adam was formed on the third day, but his creation was not complete... he was an unfinished vessel.

---

What in Genesis 2 supports that idea?The verses you shared really do not support that Adam appeared on day 3.The author of Genesis 1 had access to the Garden of Eden Story and wrote Gen 1 accordingly. That author did not put the creation of man on day 3.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Can you show how the author of Genesis 1 followed the Garden of Eden story?

---

In Message 13 you stated: In Message 7 you stated: I can understand how you could draw the conclusion that Adam was created on the 3rd day, but that would make the stories contradict each other since the later author didn't seem to draw that conclusion.The Garden of Eden story is not concerned with the cosmic. On the day when ADONAI, God, made earth and heaven. Probably began in a time of less cosmis knowledge.Genesis 1 was written considerably later when people understood the cosmos a bit better. In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.So let's see how they might have come up with Genesis 1 from reading the Garden of Eden story. The beasts in Genesis 1 were created the same day as Adam which was day 6. So what support do you have for your theory that Adam was created on day three?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

But by combining all those events in Genesis 2 into one day from Adam to the creation of beasts, you have the creation of plants (day 3) and birds (day 5).

---

I didn't combine them into one day. The writer of Genesis 1 spread it over 5 days with beast and man created on the sixth day.The writer of the Eden story didn't really specify days.

quote:

---

I have been giving support throughout this entire thread. For more support I have kind of combined this into my last reply to Ringo.

---

My support against your theory is that Genesis 1 is a later writing supported by the Documentary Hypothesis and in Message 35 I showed you how Genesis 1 could be written with the Eden story as a resource.You have shown how you have inserted the Eden story into Genesis one, but there is still no support for Adam being created on day 3. I understand why you are saying that, but there is no evidence within the Bible to support your theory. Genesis 1 and 2 are two different authors and neither one was necessarily written to support the other. Each had their own purpose for what they wrote.All we've shown is that we can shoehorn these writings together in two different ways.What you are missing from what I've provided is that since Genesis 1 is a later priestly writing, the priest (inspired by God) listed man as created on the 6th day.Your presentation is fine for a sermon, but this is a debate in a science forum. You need more "evidence" to support your theory.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Even though the Genesis 1 story is said to be a later date than the Genesis 2 story, nothing in your hypothesis suggests that one was referencing the other.

---

Fine, let's say the priest never heard the Garden of Eden story and God inspired him to write the creation timeline from scratch. God would surely know the Eden story. He still had man created on day 6 and no mention of Eden.

quote:

---

Why can't both stories be devinely inspired of God?

---

I didn't say they weren't both inspired. Again they were inspired for different purposes. The later one was inspired to share the creation timeline. The older one just dealt with man's creation, no timeline given.

quote:

---

Just because one story is not written to support the other and each having there own purpose does not make it ok for them to contradict each other. They can't both be right if there is a contradiction. I believe both are inspired.

---

I didn't said they contradicted each other. They are both right for their purpose and their time.Your theory contradicts them.

quote:

---

What you are missing from what I've provided is that since Genesis 1 is a later priestly writing, the priest (inspired by God) listed man as created on the 6th day.

​

Just the priestly writing is inspired?

---

Again, didn't say that. You're still missing the point.Edited by purpledawn, : Typo

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

If the order of certain key events are not the same then they can't both be right!

---

Sure they can. One is a timeline and one is not. Neither of them put Adam's creation on the 3rd day.

quote:

---

The only way they could be both right is if they are not acually the same part of an event, but only appear to be.

---

No that's not the only way they could both be right.As I've said before, neither one supports your theory that Adam was created on day 3.What in Genesis supports your theory?ABE: As you said in Message 49As I said above. One is a timeline and one isn't. The Garden of Eden story isn't written as a specific timeline, just a generalization. The main point of the story is man, not the creation timeline.So both can be right or their purpose.Edited by purpledawn, : Added thought.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

I think I get what your saying now! Your saying that the order of events in Genesis 1 is correct. The author in Genesis 2 however documented it in a different order because man was his focus and therefore is mentioned first.

---

No that's not what I'm saying.The author's didn't document anything. They weren't there. What I'm saying is that when God inspired the timeline to be written, it did not put Adam's creation on day 3, which does invalidate your theory. The Garden of Eden story was not a timeline.As I've said before, you've provded good material for a sermon, but this is a debate forum, not a forum for presenting sermons.Again, what in Genesis 1 or 2 supports your idea that Adam existed on day 3 and please explain how?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz