Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2

Hi Straggler, Because that is what I chose to debate in this thread as I specifically laid out in the OP. Because there was a heaven and a earth that was created in the beginning and populated as described in the history of the day in which God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 2:4-25.The same earth existed covered with water in Genesis 1:2. The following verses through verse 27 describes how the earth was repaired and made inhabitable again and the repopulating of the earth. With the creation of water creatures and mankind in the image/likeness of God added as new creations. Well the man was told if he ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge he would die that day.That man nor any of his descendants existed in the evening we find in Genesis 1:2 as the earth was covered in water. If any survived they had turned into water creatures. The only two I can find their death recorded was Able who was killed by Cain and the unnamed young man Lamech killed.But none existed at Genesis 1:2.Archeologist keep digging up bones that belonged to people that lived a long time ago. But these people was not modern man.Peter is the only one who mentioned the demise of the old world. Some think Peter was talking about the flood of Noah. But Noah did not perish. The world being overflowed with water Peter is talking about had no survivors.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Yes two completely seperate books would seem to have even more claim to be unrelated than two chapters from the same book. No?So the case for two Darwins is strengthened. As you put it "Thanks for confirming my affirmation".

Ah. So your premise is that if there are any seeming contradictions between these two sections of the bible then (rather than errors of any sort) these must be referring to different events. Rather unsurprisingly you then conclude that there are two stories because the descriptions in each are not entirely compatible. Well done. Well how do we know it was the same Earth? As you have already made clear the use of the same name doesn't necessarily mean the same thing in each of the two stories does it? There are two species of "man" (one that is of Gods image and one that was created from the dust of the ground right?). There are two places in which these different species of man are placed (one with a forbidden tree and one without right?) Why is earth necessarily the same in the two stories? The whole thing makes far more sense if the two events are completely separate.It would be entirely compatible with scripture if the first humans were created on one Earth and still existed today and the second existed on this earth wouldn't it?

Hi PD, None of these happened in the beginning. They had to happen after the heaven and the earth was created and furnished as described in the two stories found in chapter 1 and chapter 2. This is the only logical conclusion as the heaven and the earth had to begin before anything else could exist. But Moses was told by God to write in a book all the thing that he had been told by God including all the things the people heard God say to Moses. These were to be placed in the side of the ark and rehearsed to the people during the seventh year sabbath. What the audience understood in those days God to be saying then did not make a bit of difference as it does not make a bit of difference today.God said what He said even if Moses wrote it down wrong. Or if the scribes changed the wording around to suit their biases. Or as our new translations come out pretty regular now.It's man's responsibility to get it right.That is why Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to lead us and guide us in all truth.Since today we have so many people that know not God the Father, God the Son or the Holy Spirit must less have the Holy Spirit abiding in them to lead them and guide them in all truth mankind is really messing up what God gave to Moses, the Prophets, The Apostles and the Disciples.The Bible is foolishness to those who have not the Holy Spirit to lead them and guide them in all truth. 1 Corthians 2:14 Rather than to jump through all the hoops to make it say what someone wants it to say, wouldn't it be better to just take it as God said what He meant and meant what He said. A very long time ago in the beginning, God created the:Heaven shamayim the abode of the stars.
Earth 'erets land, earth.I think I will stick with the meanings that was around for thousands of years rather than from our newly enlightened educated elite who know better than anyone else what was meant.I wonder what book they use to get what they think the people understood the words to mean. The only place I can come up with is their imagination.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Straggler, Why would the story about another earth be included in a book for the present earth?If you are hinting at other universes with earths in them I would not disagree that they exist. They may exist or they may not exist. Since God is all powerful He could have created 1 or millions of universes I would not put a limit on what God could do.But that is not what I am affirming. I am affirming that there is a story of creation in chapter 1 and a different story of creation in chapter 2.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

To inform us of these other "humans" and this other "earth" such that we can seek them out. Thus meaning that SETI is gods work. And I am affirming that these differences can be explained by two different earths.(**to paraphrase you elsewhere in this thread**)Your problem is you only have what is written in the first 2 chapters of Genesis to refute what is written in those 2 chapters.Can you refute my two earths affirmation based on what was written in the first 2 chapters of Genesis?Or not?

the hebrews had several definitions for 'heavens'. Yes, it can mean the area of sky where the birds fly in earths atmosphere as was created in genesis...but it also can be extended beyond that as the following scriptures show The source of the original light was the existing sun.In Gen 1:3 the hebrew word for light is different to the word used for light on the 4th day.
The first instance of 'light' uses the word ’ohr meaning light in a general sense.
But on the fourth day the word changes to ma‧’ohr′ which means the SOURCE of the light.The way to understand this is that the light (ohr) on the first day could be seen, but the source of light (maohr) the sun could not be seen. This would have been because of a thick atmosphere such as when we have an overcast day. The day is still light, but we cannot see the sun or feel its full effects...its diffused by the clouds.On the 4th day, God causes the overcast to clear so that the sun could fully shine on the earth and from an earthly perspective, 'appear' in the heavens. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

figuratively, we could say Gods creative works began in a period of darkness until all that he had accomplished was clearly visible.literally, i dont think the movement of any planet in the universe would have any effect on where God is sitting. God is said to be surrounded in light always, so he would never experience a 'day and night' in the literal sense. Gen 1:27And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them....
31After that God saw everything he had made and, look! [it was] very good. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth and all their army came to their completion. 2And by the seventh day God came to the completion of his work that he had made, and he proceeded to REST"Nowhere in genesis do we read that the 7th day came to its completion. So the only logical conclusion is that the people created on the 6th day, were the end of gods creations....they were Adam and Eve as mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 19:4Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female (gen 1:27)
5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? (Gen 2:24)If Jesus beleived that the people created in Gen 1 were any different to the people created in Gen 2, there is no way he would have spoke of them as the same people. the physical evidence disagrees with you. There were animals existing on the earth before man showed up. So the first account in genesis is the account of the chronological creation, whereas the account in chpt 2 is looking specifically at mankind. The reason for that is because moses was describing the 'fall' of mankind from perfection and from their garden home. have you taken into account the words of the prophets Isaiah, of King Solomon and of the psalmists who tell us that the earth will NEVER be destroyed? That it will exist forever...that Gods purpose for it will be fulfilled and he will never allow it to be destroyed??? it was produced over milleniums of time. The 3rd and 4th day saw the production of plantlife and sealife....these 2 'ages' could have spanned millions of years. The 5th & 6th day could have also spanned millions of years. That would have been plenty of time for such elements to form...millions of years of plants and animals dying is perfectly logical and the physical evidence also backs it up.The 'days' of genesis are not 24 hours....the physical evidence and even the use of the word in the account shows that its not a literal 24 hour day.

quote:

---

None of these happened in the beginning. They had to happen after the heaven and the earth was created and furnished as described in the two stories found in chapter 1 and chapter 2.

---

But one would have to know what the author meant by "heaven and earth" in Genesis 1:1 before one could say for sure.

quote:

---

This is the only logical conclusion as the heaven and the earth had to begin before anything else could exist.

---

The people at the time of Moses wouldn't envision the planet or space as we know it today. Words also gain meanings over time. The word "earth" doesn't mean planet and was not the name of the planet when Moses supposedly existed. If you go by the "book" it means dry land. Our planet is not all dry land. The author of Genesis 1:1 told his readers what eretz meant. It refers to dry land as opposed to the sea.

quote:

---

But Moses was told by God to write in a book all the thing that he had been told by God including all the things the people heard God say to Moses. These were to be placed in the side of the ark and rehearsed to the people during the seventh year sabbath.

---

The Book of the Law. We don't know that Genesis 1:1 was in that book. Given what was written in Deuteronomy concerning the Book of the Law, I doubt that it was.

quote:

---

What the audience understood in those days God to be saying then did not make a bit of difference as it does not make a bit of difference today.

​

God said what He said even if Moses wrote it down wrong. Or if the scribes changed the wording around to suit their biases. Or as our new translations come out pretty regular now.

​

It's man's responsibility to get it right.

---

That's an excuse to ignore truth and reality. When you do that, you lose credibility. Seriously, "God said what he said even if Moses wrote it down wrong...?" That's nonsense and you know it. You've essentially negated the usefulness of the Bible writings.

quote:

---

That is why Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to lead us and guide us in all truth.

​

Since today we have so many people that know not God the Father, God the Son or the Holy Spirit must less have the Holy Spirit abiding in them to lead them and guide them in all truth mankind is really messing up what God gave to Moses, the Prophets, The Apostles and the Disciples.

---

You assume I'm not lead by the Holy Spirit in understanding the reality of the Bible writers because my views differ from yours. The Holy Spirit isn't given to support doctrine or tradition.

quote:

---

The Bible is foolishness to those who have not the Holy Spirit to lead them and guide them in all truth. 1 Corthians 2:14

---

You're the one who is presenting the Bible as foolishness. I haven't. Many lessons from the Bible influence my daily behavior. One has to understand the original lesson before one can upgrade it for today.

quote:

---

Rather than to jump through all the hoops to make it say what someone wants it to say, wouldn't it be better to just take it as God said what He meant and meant what He said.

---

But you obviously don't know what God meant. Just going by the book as you wish, the word eretz doesn't refer to the planet. It refers to dry land. There is a difference between Earth and earth in our language. Also by the book God called the firmament, heaven. Firmament is not space. I prefer the natural reading of the text, but we still have to understand what God wanted the writer's audience to know. We have to understand what the words meant then, not now. Language evolves.

quote:

---

I think I will stick with the meanings that was around for thousands of years rather than from our newly enlightened educated elite who know better than anyone else what was meant.

---

How many thousands of years? Whose meanings? Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English? The English language wasn't around at the time of Moses. Scientific knowledge was considerably different in 400 CE than in the time of Moses.

quote:

---

I wonder what book they use to get what they think the people understood the words to mean. The only place I can come up with is their imagination.

---

I expected better from you. I'm confident you know how scholars and historians research to figure out ancient languages, whether for the Bible or any other ancient book.Much is lost over time. Odds are, we're all just guessing; but scholars and historians at least make an educated guess.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

Thanks for the clarification, Peg. Thank God for the original Hebrew text. I've noticed that a lot of answers to Biblical anomolies seem to be wrapped up in original Hebrew or Greek texts. Is there any kind of campaign to get the Bible properly translated so that it all makes sense?Just one final question about Genesis. Who wrote it? I don't understand how anyone could have been around to witness and record the creation events.

Hi Straggler, What would be the point if we can't get there from here? Sure.But that would not make any difference to you as your aim is to cause confusion, and derail the debate.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Well how do we know we can't? Or if we cannot currently that we will not be able to one day? And even if we cannot why would god not want to let us know we are not alone in the universe? Go on then. I don't think you can. No. My aim is to show that your affirmation derived from literal interpretation is making some very selective and baseless assumptions.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No, they were created in the beginning. Gen 1:1 was written after the beginning. Also, its a copy of a copy of a copy, according to you, so why even cling to that particular wording as The Truth^TM...But further, what makes you think you even know what is being talked about as heaven and earth?You assume that earth means the planet Earth but it could be something else, like the land. So even your affirmation on it saying what it says doesn't support your interpretation of what it means.You're just making stuff up that you can shoehorn into what you think the words as presented mean. And you want us to try to argue against what the words are instead of what you are assuming they should be interpreted to mean. And then you're gonna keep claiming that your interpretation has not been refuted because your affirmation on what the words are have not been refuted.If you can see the problem with this then I can't help you.

---

ABE:Straggler had the best point in this thread:One could use the same words that you have affirmed to come to the conclusion that, not only are there two creation stories, but that there are two earths. You're position is an arbitrary post-hoc rationalization based on your own assumptions that you are unwilling to consider might be incorrect.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Hi Peg, You could figuratively say anything your imagination could come up with.I did not set out to debate what you or anyone else could figuratively say.In Message 1 I said: I am trying to examine and find out exactly what is written in the KJV Bible and have gotten very little input from anyone.You keep preaching your belief of yom. PD keeps bringing in her new found covenant creation beliefs. Straggler just keeps throwing up smoke bombs.It would be great if someone would actually debate what the subject was set up to debate. Where did this statement come from? What does it have to do with the discussion? I don't know who said that.But John said Jesus said "God is Light". I agree that mankind who were created male and female was the last of God's creation so far as He rested from His creation works. That statement is Peg's assumption.Mankind that was created male and female in Genesis 1:27 was called mankind or Adam as you prefer. Had the word Adam been translated rather than transliterated in 5:1 it would have read mankind.Male and female was call Adam in 5:2.Conclusion these verses are referring to mankind. There are no proper names given to either of these people.To assert Jesus is referring to these people in Matthew 19:4 is a long stretch.There is nowhere mentioned in Genesis 1:2-Genesis 2:3 anything about Eve.Eve appears 4 times in the Bible. The man that was formed from the dust of the Ground in Genesis 2:7 that said: Called this woman Eve in Genesis 3:20.Therefore Jesus is talking about the man and woman created in Genesis 2:7 and 2:22 not the ones created in Genesis 1:27. Well Jesus did not refer to the people created in Genesis 1:27.
He was talking about the people in Genesis 2:7 and 2:22 and quoting what the man created in 2:7 had said. What physical evidence? According to what? Which account are you calling the first?The one that is the history of the heaven and the earth in the day the Lord God created the heaven and the earth which was in the beginning?ORThe story of things that happened some 6000+ years ago? How can the account of what happened in the beginning be an explanation of what happened 6,000+ years ago? Where did ICANT, John, or Peter say the earth was going to be destroyed?Peter said it was going to melt with fervent heat.Science tells us this is how it began at trillions of degrees.John then says God is going to create a New Heaven and Earth.In the beginning He had to use material to create the universe and earth. When He creates the new ones He will use existing material.Energy can not be destroyed. The form can only be changed. That is the reason you will exist eternally. Which you keep asserting in every thread that mentions time. You have to perform all kinds of imaginative jumping through hoops to back up your assertions rather than take God's definition.God defined what constituted a day. in Genesis 1:5 where God said: Did God call a light period day? Yes/NoDid God call darkness night? Yes/NoDid God call a combination of light period and dark period the first day? Yes/No This day ended with the beginning of a light period which ended at evening with the beginning of a dark period which ended with the beginning of a light period and was called the second day? Yes/No This day ended with the beginning of a light period which ended at evening with the beginning of a dark period which ended with the beginning of a light period and was called the third day? Yes/No This day ended with the beginning of a light period which ended at evening with the beginning of a dark period which ended with the beginning of a light period and was called the fourth day? Yes/No This day ended with the beginning of a light period which ended at evening with the beginning of a dark period which ended with the beginning of a light period and was called the fifth day? Yes/No This day ended with the beginning of a light period which ended at evening with the beginning of a dark period which ended with the beginning of a light period and was called the sixth day? Yes/NoDo you disagree that this is what is written in the KJV Bible.Here is what is written in the New World Translation Your bible says it came to be evening that means the light period closed.It then says that it came to be morning the beginning of the next day (light period)Do you disagree with what is written in your Bible?If you do why?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

You can no more refute my two earths interpretation than anyone can refute your two created human species interpretation. That is my point. But what is it that you want to debate? Your literal interpretation of the assumption that these two portions of the bible are inerrant and conflicting thus requiring two stories? The highly specific particulars of the two stories that you think reconcile these seeming contradictions that ignore all the other possible interpretations that could be made?Why is your seemingly bizarre interpretation any more valid than my two earths interpretation? Why do you think that your irrefutable interpretation is any more worthy of consideration than mine?Do you not see that your reaction to my two earths interpretation is exactly how others feel about your two creations/two human species "affirmation"?Can you not see that?