What's Best Reconciliation of Gen 1 and 2 You've Heard?

Invicts...Here we have two stories of creation. No one knows if either is true or false or if any of the parts of either could be true or false.Only those who accept what is put before them with "faith" do not question. The rest of us look for answers. Perhaps there is something to all of it. And what will athesists do? I don't know. I am a non-religious thesist.If we ever resolve the issue of creation we will see that the solution will probably contain many of the elements of both original stories. Such is usually the case. (here I refer to historical investigation of myth) There will be changes, additions, deletions and the time line will be adjusted for clarity.The enquiring mind will not hastily dismiss the notions and proposals of others. Each attempt brings us a little closer to truth.In a stream of "disconnected" story bits it is perhaps possible that much is missing that if known, would shed a little light. It is by this kind of thinking that discoveries have been made in the past.The anti-thesis to this is to simply declare that the words of others are no more than "baseless inventions" without, I might add, explaining exactly why they are so?I don't mind critism if it is accompanied by alternative answers. If all one does is "nay say" then one must go away and be quiet for they are adding nothing to the discussion. I doubt the others of which you speak when you say: "are we to understand" will mind.In closing please let me remind you that the original topical question was something like: "What is the best explanation of Genesis you have heard....".
Given the question, my answer is quite within acceptable limits.OK so please, let's all hear what you have to say on the matter. What are your views on Genesis? Come ahead and open up a little. I won't denigrate your attempts to explain things.Jman

Message 85I posted that a while ago. Hopefully it will clear up where I stand.

quote:

---

In closing please let me remind you that the original topical question was something like: "What is the best explanation of Genesis you have heard....".
Given the question, my answer is quite within acceptable limits.

---

The problem is that this thread is for reconcilling the differences. If you invent a new story that doesn't take into account any of those differences, then you've accomplished little in the way of "reconcilliation." However, I'll set the bickering to the side for now and deal with the rest of your message.

quote:

---

This is nice because the Earth is full of fossils of these heavy browed guys even though the Bible doesn't talk about them but God must have put them there right?

---

This is nice if you are trying to look for some Biblical explanation for the evidence of evolution. The problem is that the Bible says nothing about God creating such creatures, nor does it contain anything similar to your story. And as for "God must have put them there,": prove it.

quote:

---

...it is scripture which confuses us in the first place so best we wing it and think for ourselves!

---

I think this statement further confirms what I've already said: you are simply inventing a new story that doesn't conflict with itself, pulling parts from Genesis, and trying to pass it off as though it were some combination of the two which leads us to have no conflicting interpretations.

quote:

---

Well last week I was definately somewhere in outer space.. For sure dudes.

---

And it would seem as though you've brought your experiences back with you.Trék

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species

quote:

---

Can we really not do better than this? Is there no literalist to provide a more reasonable explanation than us ex-YECer's have come up with?

---

My explanation is that chapter 1 is the sequence. The next chapter is after the fact, and it goes back and explains what was already done in some greater detail.

To add to your point, which is the same reason I was told, the interpretation of the words is used to reinforce that point.
For example, in Chapter two where a phrase includes something like "God created ___ and ____", the explanation is that the word "and" does not necessarily mean "at the same time".

quote:

---

To add to your point, which is the same reason I was told, the interpretation of the words is used to reinforce that point.
For example, in Chapter two where a phrase includes something like "God created ___ and ____", the explanation is that the word "and" does not necessarily mean "at the same time". To add to your point, which is the same reason I was told, the interpretation of the words is used to reinforce that point.
For example, in Chapter two where a phrase includes something like "God created ___ and ____", the explanation is that the word "and" does not necessarily mean "at the same time".

---

Also, in Genesis 2 it starts with saying everything was already creted and done. So what we then see is going back, and looking closer at what was already done.

I'm not a literalist but from what i understand in my version of Genesis 1 and 2, there is no contradiction. Genesis 2 doesn't actually say that man was created before the animals and plants.
Early in Genesis 2 it says:'When the Lord God made the Earth and the heavens and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the Earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the Earth and there was no man to work the ground. But streams came up from the Earth and watered the whole surface of the ground, the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living being'People obviously think that this means man was created at the time described in the first sentence, however there's nothing to suggest this. I think the passage is saying that long ago before animals and plants had been created there was no man to water the ground. Now God is creating man to help water the ground and look after the plants and animals. The passage just misses the part where animals were created, rightly so as this was covered in Genesis 1. Later on it says:'Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground, all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to man to see what he would name them.'Notice that it says 'God had formed', which doesn't imply he created animals at that literal time in the passage, which would have been after man. It merely states that God had formed the animals at an earlier time and now wanted man to name them.

First. A little something I learned when I first got here. You should use the reply button at the bottom of the post you are replying to, and not the general reply. If you want to reply to the topic as a whole, responding to the opening post is probably the best way. This way, people will know when they need to send replies to you .And now, second, to what you say.You are simply wrong in saying:

quote:

---

...however there's nothing to suggest this. I think the passage is saying that long ago before animals and plants had been created there was no man to water the ground. Now God is creating man to help water the ground and look after the plants and animals. The passage just misses the part where animals were created, rightly so as this was covered in Genesis 1.

---

I address some things in detail in Message 85, but I will focus on what you have said here.

quote:

---

Gen 2:18 -- And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. (19) And out the the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air...

---

If there are animals before man, then when God puts man in Eden, he would not be alone. Further more, God would not have created all the animals if they already existed.

quote:

---

The passage just misses the part where animals were created

---

You're right, it does miss this part... but it's obvious why. Gen 2 wouldn't mention the creation of the animals before mentioning the creation of man, because the people who wrote Gen 2 were under the impression that man was created first. They are simply using a chronological ordering of the events (which is logical), and so mentioning something that happened after event 'A' before mentioning event 'A' would simply be confusing and illogical.Trék

quote:

---

Gen 2:18 -- And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. (19) And out the the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

If there are animals before man, then when God puts man in Eden, he would not be alone. Further more, God would not have created all the animals if they already existed.

---

Everything was already created in chapter 2. This chapter is not a creation order at all. That is where you crash and burn. Look at this, the first words of chapter 2, and comprehend the setting."Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. "

I believe Gen 1 technically ends at Gen 2:3, which is pretty obvious if you look at what the verses say.

quote:

---

Look at this, the first words of chapter 2, and comprehend the setting.

​

"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. "

---

This only further proves the point that these two chapters--like the rest of the Bible--are contradictory.Trék

quote:

---

This chapter is not a creation order at all.

---

Then just what is it?

No, they are seen at different distances, so to speak. Chap 2 goes back, and takes a closer look at what already went down. It brings a few things out that were not mentioned in the overall viewpoint of chap 1.

Please give some examples from the text where that happens.Trék

Invictus, Don't you think that this is a superficial understanding of God mentioning that it was not good for man to be alone? God's mentioning that it was not good for the man to be alone was in anticipation that He would build for Him a wife. I don't think that God meant that it was a good idea for man to have a animal companion.God's bringing the animals to man to name was not for God's sake. It was for the man's sake. It cultivated within the man a sense of his uniqueness and prepared him for his wife, a true helpmeet and counterpart. I don't know that. Maybe that was an impression and maybe is was not. And if it is there is little effect on the account. Both Genesis 1 and 2 show man at the pinnacle of created lives on the earth. One may be clearer about man being created after all the animals than the other. But both place man at the philosophical apex of all created lives on the earth. The only exception being the tree of life and God Himself.In both chapters we ascend up the ladder of the significance of living creatures and find human beings at the apex. There are other explanations possible. Chapter 2 may be more local to the garden in Eden. I think Adam must have been the originator of one of the accounts. One of the accounts may have been passed down from the first humans created, the original ancestors of which would have been Adam and Eve.

You haven't read Genesis 2?

Coragyps, Let me rephrase my comment.I don't think that by "a helpmeet" God meant an animal companion. Though you are correct that the animals were definitely created for his sake.Notice again:"And Jehovah God said, It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper as his counterpart" (Gen 2:18 RcV)God did not say that He would make him (plural) helpers as (plural) counterparts. So the many animals were not what God had in mind, though they were created for Adam's sake.The helper and counterpart unique to man which God had in mind was the woman. God knew from the start. Adam had to have his anticipation built up in order to appreciate her. Therefore the animals were brought to him for his naming as a preparation for the building of the woman from his rib.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.