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

The Bible does not say he survived by natural means, but suggests he cried out after death and God heard him, or you can see the language as figurative that he cried out from Sheol or some such, but was still alive. I tend to think the former.He died, but God raised him back up and had the fish or whale spit him up on the beach, and probably the way he looked made the story all the more credible, and Ninevah repented, which was what Jonah did not want.interesting story, and true

Plus the sun and the moon were not created until the 4th day. What would a day be?I have a hard time seeing the Bible as saying 24 hour periods, although it could be, but the text suggests something different, imo.

I don't see the different order at all. Genesis 2 does not state that all the animals were created after Adam. You have to stretch it to make the contradiction, imo. Read them both as the same story, one more general and one more detailed, and they fit.In fact, it strongly suggests the exact opposite of what you claim. God makes Adam and puts him in the Garden, and then God sets off to make him a helper suitable for him, as the story goes. Then, Genesis reads beginning at 2:19."Now, the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and ...... He brought them to the man..."It looks pretty clear that the animals had already been formed, and only God brings them around to Adam.Now, it is a curious story, and one must assume God knew all along exactly what He would do, but it reads the way it does for our benefit.But getting back to the main point of this thread, Genesis does not state the animals were created after Adam.Moreover, Genesis 1: 27 strongly suggests the order of Genesis 2 in the creation of Adam first."So God created man in his own image, in the image of God h created hin; male and female he created them."This message has been edited by randman, 08-30-2005 01:10 AMThis message has been edited by randman, 08-30-2005 01:33 AM

That's a pretty interesting idea, might even be true.

Hoary, you make an interesting conjecture. Maybe elaborate some more on the parable of Genesis 1.

You didn't tell us where you got this quote:

quote:

---

"Now, the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and ...... He brought them to the man..."

---

What translation?The KJV says:

quote:

---

Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

---

The KJV doesn't say "had formed". It says "formed" - i.e. after Adam. Maybe somebody can tell us which is the better translation? Again, not according to the KJV:

quote:

---

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

---

Look at the tense again: "have dominion over... every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Not "every living thing that I am going to create after you."Notice also that in Genesis 1, there is no mention that man and woman were created separately, while in Genesis 2, the order is man, then animals, then woman.In the KJV, at least, the orders are significantly different, unless you're desparate to apologize them into agreement.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This has already been covered in te thread. Not only do many translations omit the "had", you need to start at 2:18 (NIV)By your reading instead of going and making a helper like He said God first has Adam look over all the animals to see if one could be suitable. The reading found in other versions makes more sense, sicne God's next action is to create potential helpers.

The day-night cycle is set up right at the start (Genesis 1:3-5). Before the creation of the sun and moon. There's no reason why the "days" shouldn't be read as ordinary 24 hour days (in the context of the story)

I have generally taken Genesis 1 to be an overview of the creation of all things and Genesis 2 to be an overview of the creation of the Garden of Eden.My take on events' order:

1. plants and trees created on day three
2. birds created on day five
3. animals in general created on day six (before man)
4. Humans/Garden of Eden created on day six (after animals)
   1. edible plants and fruit trees created in the garden, tree of life and tree of knowledge of good and evil planted in the garden
   2. Adam created
   3. every type of bird and beast of the field is created (again, but only one of each kind) and brought to Adam for the purpose of naming
   4. Eve created

How important it is I don't know, but I do note that when referring to the animals in Genesis 1 they are called "cattle," "creeping things," and "beasts of the earth." However, in Genesis 2, they are called "cattle" and "beasts of the field."I am not sure, but I think "beasts of the earth" refers to animals in general of all sorts while "beasts of the field" might refer to only animals man tends to domesticate -- such as sheep or cattle.I think this is a somewhat more in-depth view of your "overview/detail" explanation.--JasonThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 08-30-2005 04:05 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 08-30-2005 04:07 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 08-30-2005 04:09 AM

When dating a king of Israel's first year by referring to the year of the king of Judah; and vice versa; you cannot read three kings in a row without what seems to be a contradiction.A friend of mine, Dale V. Wilhoit, adjusted these king's reigns to harmonize perfectly.He did this by employing the secular historian's practice in dating the kings of the pagan nations.THE RULE WAS THIS."It is appropriate to assign co-reigns to kings, if there is no evidence to the contrary."In Babylon, Nabonidus co-reigned with his son Belshazzar.
This is the answer to your question on this subject.hoaryhead

Greetings Randman:Every day of "The Parable of the 7 Days of Creation" is interpreted in the Bible."For the evening and the morning were the first day" - Gen 1.5.In each day, Darkness is followed by Light.Adam and Eve being chased from the Garden of Eden, and losing their close relationship with God, was the Evening of the First Day."And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh.
Then men began to call on the name of the Lord" - Gen 4.26.
"Then God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light" - Gen 1.3.THE EVENING OF THE SECOND DAY.Men became "continually evil" and God destroyed the population of the earth, except for 8 souls of the fasmily of Noah.Adam and Eve died "in-day" (Heb.) they ate of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.The phrase "in-day" is the word day prefixed with the letter "B" which is the preposition "in."The Serpent said, "You will not die."And, doing much harm to their readers, the famous Bible commentators agreed with the Serpent, writing, "They did not die but put on humanity, and the ability to die later."But the Flood, ending the First Day was 1656 years after Adam was driven from Eden.
Adam lived 930 years.
And so, he died "in-day" he ate of the fruit.And the entire Parable is interpreted in the Bible like this.hoaryhead

I never viewed this as a conflict. Gen 1 discusses creation in general with man and women being the last item listed. However, since it talks about the various animals being created before humans, you might conclude that they all were created before humans but that isn't necessarily so. So, Chapter 2 lists those animals created after humans which I have always understood to be "domestic" animals and birds. Factually, it is hypothesised that "man" domesticated wild animals. However, God could have helped out as the Genesis 2 account suggests by modifying those "wild" animals that could be used by the human couple. I have a dog that must be a direct decendent from one of those created for Adam because he sure is great. If you don't believe in God, just get a good dog and you will surely reconsider. Only God could create a good dog.
Nils

1. Gen. 1:11 has the trees made on day 3 before man;
Gen. 2:8 has the trees made on day 6 after man.2. Gen. 1:20 has birds made out of the water on day 5;
Gen. 2:19 has birds made out of the ground (after man) on day 6.3. Gen. 1:24, 25 has the animals made on day 6 before man;
Gen. 2:19 has the animals made on day 6 after manExplanation of supposed contradiction:1. Chapter 1 tells the entire story in the order it happened.
2. Gen. 2:4-6 gives a quick summary of the first five days of creation.
3. Gen. 2:7-25 is describing only the events that took place on day 6 in the Garden of Eden.The trees described in Genesis 2:8 are only in the Garden (the rest of the world is already full of trees from day 3). The purpose of this second creation of trees may have been to let Adam see that God did have power to create, that He was not just taking credit for the existing world. Notice that the second creation of trees was still on day 6 and was only those trees that are "pleasant to the sight and good for food."The birds created out of the ground on day 6 are only one of each "kind" so that Adam can name them and select a wife. The rest of the world is full of birds from day 5.Genesis 2:19 is describing only the animals created in the Garden, after man. The purpose of this second batch of animals being created was so that Adam could name them (Gen. 2:19) and select a wife (Gen. 2:20). Adam, not finding a suitable one (God knew he wouldn't), God made Eve (Gen. 2:21-22).There are no contradictions between these two chapters. Chapter 2 only describes in more detail the events in the Garden of Eden on day 6. If ancient man had written the Bible (as some scoffers say), he would never have made it say that the light was made before the sun! Many ancient cultures worshiped the sun as the source of life. God is light. God made the light before He made the sun so we could see that He (not the sun) is the source of life.This message has been edited by renaissance guy, 10-13-2005 06:33 PM

i don't think this view holds any water. clearly, they were written by two different, and both cover about the same subjects -- though i will admit to different foci. genesis 1-2:4 seems to be abotu the world as a whole, and genesis 2:4 through the end of the third chapter seems to be about israel's patriarch, and the pastoral society.genesis 2 describes domesticated animals, genesis 1 describes wild. same with the plants.but it's not to say they're compatible. they are clearly separate accounts with separate origins. in ancient cultures, many worshipped a sun-god. this seems to be a re-wording of the same basic idea.

---

אָרַח

quote:

---

But is that correct? How do you know they both cannot be true? Maybe they are both true, and put in there to show us that reality is a little different than what we surmise based on everyday assumptions.

---

Okay... Maybe he was dead and attacked Juda after being dead for ten years. Does this mean that he is also capable of resurrection?Probably not.And what do you mean by everyday assumptions?

---

Everything in the above post could indeed be a load of junk, but we can all believe what we want to