Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2

You are making the assumption though that the text following Genesis 2:4 refers to something in Genesis 1.But if you do that then you also need to understand that there are two different gods involved. the god in the stories beginning at Genesis 2:5 is most certainly not the god found in Genesis 1.It is possible I suppose that the god that is found in the stories beginning at Genesis 2:5 is just an amateur god, an apprentice or novice god just learning his accreditation. That would explain why he is such a bumbler, unsure, afraid, a hands on tinkerer much like Satan in the Mysterious Stranger.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

No, you have asserted that what is in Genesis 2:4-4:24 refers to what is in Genesis 1, but that is all you have done. You have not explained anything convincingly.My refutation has been presented many times but I am of course happy to try yet again.The stories were written by two different (at a minimum two) cultures living a two different times meant to serve two different purposes for people living many hundreds if not thousands of years apart.The younger story, that begins in Genesis 1, was written by a more sophisticated people and meant to support the idea of the priestly week. In it the god is separate and aloof, not really interacting with the creation. The god creates by an act of will alone. It does the job without hesitation, looks on what was done, deems it good and so takes the next day off.The older story found in Genesis 2 describes a far more primitive god, intimate, human, sometimes unsure, a hands on tinkerer. This story has the purpose of explaining the world using a "Just So Story" format to explain what humans create a moral society, must farm instead of being hunter gatherers, fear snakes, domesticate animals and women and why childbirth seemed more painful for women than for the other animals. Then it continues on to try to describe the political and tribal relationships of the various peoples of the area.Creation itself is simply a plot device that both authors used but is not really the subject of either story.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Your whole affirmation/assertion/claim seems to rest on the word "day" in Gen. 2:4. Why not just call it a "period of time" and throw the rest of your convoluted mess out the window?

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Hi ICANT, No, it doesn't have to read like that and doesn't make sense if you do.I assume that you are dead set on the idea that my "morning story" must describe more than one morning - I assure you that it does not, and is perfectly valid English as-is, and so too can the bible be read.If you are going to talk about "the language that the bible was written in" (which you haven't, mind) and claim that it doesn't work like modern English, then we have a number of problems, the least of which is that it certainly isn't English but you're trying to treat it as if it is. I'll come back to this point in a moment... I believe that is similar to how the jews treated days and time, but off by about twelve hours. The jewish day begins at sun-down not sun-up, this is why the bible says "the evening and the morning of" each "day".Now, back to that point I was talking about: As I have said, the language that the bible was written in wasn't English. I have been told (and I lean towards accepting this) that the word for "day" is "yom" and "yom" very validly translates as "age" at least as much as it does day (infact day itself can mean age in English too) - i.e. "the day that god created the heavens and the earth" can very validly (and I argue more validly) be translated as "the age when god created the heavens and the earth".Otherwise you have a problem - if you insist on a straightforward uncomplicated direct and literal reading of the bible, there are two accounts of creation wherein the order is different. If you insist that there was only one act of creation (and no act of recreation or second act) then you cannot have the two accounts agreeing with each other and maintain day(yom)==day(English standard normal 24 hour period).If, on the other hand, you have the pre-adamic tribes of mankind, followed by another day of creating a specific garden still set within "the age of creation", along with some rivers and Adam and Eve, not only do you solve the "brides of Cain and Abel" question, but many others. Glad you think so, so don't go spouting stuff like like you did in Message 459

Hi jar, I make no such assumption. This verse says "these are the generations of the heavens and of the earth."תןלדןת can be translated generations which is the history of a family linage. It can and has been translated as history, as well as proceedings.So the context of Genesis 2:4 would require that תןלדןת
be translated history. Darby used histories, the World English Bible used history, Young used births.So when was the Heaven and the Earth created?` That verse says the Heaven and the Earth was created in the beginning.Genesis 2:4 says the following is the history of what happened in the beginning in the day when God created the heaven and the earth.So from the evidence written in the KJV Bible I conclude all the things from Genesis 2:5-4:24 is the history of the day God created the heaven and the earth.In Genesis 1:5 God calls a light period day. Why do I need to understand your understanding of two different gods involved?Why can't I just take the words in the text and examine them and take them at face value?Is the following recorded in the KJV Bible:Does Genesis 1:1 say "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."? Yes/NoDoes Genesis 2:4 say: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"? Yes/NoDoes Genesis 2:4 refer to the time frame in which the heaven and the earth were created? Yes/NoIf the answer is yes then it refers to Genesis 1:1.If the answer is no then please explain why it is not refering to Genesis 1:1.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."

Because Genesis 1 was written hundreds if not thousands of years after Genesis 2 and the two stories were written by different people from different cultures in different eras to appeal to different audiences and were meant to serve different purposes. You don't have to but if you really do "just take the words in the text and examine them and take them at face value" then the only reasonable conclusion is that two entirely different gods are described.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Hi jar, No but if it will make you happy I will assert that Genesis 2:5-4:24 is the history of the day the Lord God created the Heaven and the Earth.I will also assert that the day the Lord God created the Heaven and the Earth took place in Genesis 1:1, as that is when the Heaven and the Earth was created.So when you get tired of playing your games show me where the text does not say: You have refuted nothing.You have asserted:The stories were written by two different cultures.
At two different times.
Meant to serve two different purposes.
For people living many hundreds if not thousands of years apart.You agree with me that the younger story if found in the first chapter of Genesis.You probably don't agree that Genesis 1:1 is separate from Genesis 1:2-2"3.You then assert: Which directly contradicts Genesis 1:1.So no your assertions refute nothing.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 ringo, Now you are beginning to see the light.In Genesis 1:5 God called a light period DAY.Genesis 2:4 says in the DAY light period that God created the heaven and the earth these things took place.That light period lasted from the beginning until the darkness came that we find at Genesis 1:2.So yes it was an extended period of light that existed for a very long period of duration.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 jar, You can copy the questions but you can not answer one of them.Why do I have to know whether I am dealing with 1 God or a hundred gods to read what the text in the KJV Bible has recorded in it?Why difference does it make whether it is a lie, myth, fiction story or whatever, to read what the text in the KJV Bible has recorded in it?Can you refute that the KJV Bible has recorded in it what I have said affirmed, asserted that it says?If so please do.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."

He also called the evening and the morning, the whole 24-hour period, a day - two different meanings of yom in one verse. It says nothing of the kind. "Light period" is not hinted at in any way. Since Genesis 1:5 uses the word yom in two different ways, you can't arbitrarily pick one of them - or either of them, necessarily - for the meaning in Genesis 2:4.So no, there's no reason to jump to the conclusion that there was an "extended period of light".

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Hi greyseal, So are you calling God a liar concerning the definition of a day? That verse says God called a light period Day.It also says God called the darkness night.It also says God called the evening of the light period and the dark period that ended with morning that arrived with the light period of day two as the first day.Now God's word is not dependent on what you or I believe and it is also not dependent on what the Jews have said and practiced from the time of Moses.According to God a day is a period of light and or a period of light coupled with a period of darkness.The Hebrew word יןם
according to BDB lexicon means:1) day, time, year
a) day (as opposed to night)The Hebrew word שנה
according to BDB Lexicon means1) year
a) as division of time
b) as measure of timeSo why would יןם be used for year when it had it own special word? You can argue anything you desire to argue. You can believe anything you want to believe. Your belief or argument just does not make it a true fact.Time as you and I know it did not exist until God declared the first day.From that time until this the combination of a light period and a dark period has been a day.If you want to argue that they were long periods of time say 2 billion years, how could the plants survive the 2 billion years of darkness? Now you got up and went to work and spent 8 hours there. Then you went home and spent the dark portion eating an evening meal, taking a bath, watching a little TV and sleeping until the morning. That is a 24 hour day.So where do you get it that I am 12 hours short?The Jews used evening till evening for a day.God used the evening of a light period and the morning of a dark period as a day.Either one is a 24 hour period. My statement you are quoting here was a response to jar's comments made in Message 458. I really did not appreciate jar's assertion that the story is fiction.So I was asking who that statement was better for God or jar.Who do you think it was a better explanation for?Was it better for jar and his unbelief?OrWas it better for God portraying Him as a liar?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, you do keep making assertions.The disagreement is not with the words but with your interpretation of the words.I have presented an alternative interpretation, the readers can decide which makes more sense.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I did not portray god as a liar, the authors, editors and redactors of Genesis 2&3 did that.In the story the god character says "16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. "BUT as we know, Adam did not surely die in that day, he went on to live for a far piece.The character in the story that actually tells the truth is the serpent.

quote:

---

4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

​

5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

---

That is exactly what did happen.

quote:

---

22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

---

All these things should be sufficient to tell you that neither Creation nor the god are to be taken literally or as the primary purpose of the story.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Hi ringo, God called the light portion Day.God called the dark portion night.God called the combination of the light portion and the dark portion the first day.The Heaven and Eareth existed at Genesis 1:2 which God called the evening in Genesis 1:5.That means the light portion of the first day had expired as darkness had fallen on the Earth.That is the reason the Day in Genesis 2:4 is the light period that ended at Genesis 1:2.The Heaven and the Earth was created in Genesis 1:1. Well it could have been a 12 hour light period that ended in Genesis 1:2 but the observations and evidence would suggest it was a little longer than that.Everything from Genesis 2:5-Genesis 4:24 including 7 generations of people and Cain building a city took place in that light period.Let me go out on a limb here.Since there is no way to tell when the beginning was and science says it was 13.7 billion years ago and according to the texts of the Bible generations Genesis 1:2 was in the neighborhood of 10,000 to 6,000 years ago.I think it is safe to conclude there was an extended light period of unknown duration prior to Genesis 1:2.You got any contrary evidence.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 jar, So you want to say there is an old story and a later story.Then you want to put the man formed from the dust of the ground in the old story into the younger story of the man that was created in the image/likeness of God and say they are the same man. This refers to the man created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27.This man is said to live to be 930 years old.Now go to the older story in Genesis 2:4-4:24 and find the age of any man. The man formed from the dust of the ground or Cain or any of the other 5 generations.The man formed from the dust of the ground lived and died in the light period God created the Heaven and the Earth according to the History of the day the LORD God created the Earth and the Heaven.The man did not exist at Genesis 1:2 therefore he died the day he ate the fruit, disobeying God. Well if she did not die I would like to sit down with her and get her to explain to me just what took place from then until now. That would be a great story.The problem is the serpent lied she died.He did tell the truth when he said she would become as God knowing good and evil. When you accept what the text says there is no problem and it can be accepted as a fact according to what is written in the manuscripts as well as the scientific evidence that testifies to the events that happened.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."