What Genesis Two Says

In Message 120 Percy Proclaims Problems Pertaining To Scripture. First off, Percy is correct in that Genesis two is not from Adam's POV. Genesis two begins with a statement capping the sequential Genesis one record of generation/origins/beginnings of planet earth. That Genesis two preface is followed by a non-sequential account of pertinent points pertaining to God's work of Genesis one.For example, another problem some find is that though the plant life was created on day three, Genesis two says no seeds had yet sprouted because there was no man yet to till the ground.Explanation: Notice in Genesis three, after the curse that the ground was cursed due to God's curse. Adam was to become a tiller of the ground and herbs/plants were to be his food, for the first time in his life. Notice that in Genesis one, the fruit of the tree was to be his fruit No tilling of the ground. All the need do was pluck the fruit of the trees.Also in Genesis one the ground was watered from a ground mist rather than from the atmosphere. After the ground was cursed that changed so as for falling moisture to water the tilled ground where Adam was to till and plant his food.There are other examples of the consequence the fall, including the cursing of the reptilian species which I've debated in other threads.

Where does it say that Genesis 2 is not sequential?

You read it and go figure. It's not sequential in all aspects that Genesis one is.Ask Percy That was his point in the message link. No? Did you read the Percy message link? Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

Why would we assume that the language is sequential? That's only one possible way to organize the story. If you really want to make a convincing argument regarding contradictions, I would think you would want to stick with explicit statements.As I read Genesis 2, I don't see a lot of words that mandating a sequence, however, I do see wording saying that God was making animals and then sending to Adam for naming. Quite frankly, that example also seems to be the only easy one.The making and naming language does seem to be explicitly sequential. There is at least a hint that these are new animals, but it could be that God was making copies and bringing the copies around for Adam for naming.But only a few people would feel the need to read that language hyper literally anyway. Perhaps the verses just convey the not so profound concept that God created the world by whatever method, and that humans subsequently named the animals as they encountered them.In other words, the language is only an issue for people like foreveryoung who consider Christians who are not hyper-literalists to be practically atheists.

This doesn't make much sense. According to your interpretation of day 2 language, the ground had always required tilling in order for seeds to sprout. It just wasn't necessary for Adam to do any tilling.Surely you are not saying that Adam was cursed on day 2 or 3. He didn't even exist yet.

Its an account of an event, why wouldn't there be some kind of sequence? No, not exactly, but it does have adverbs like "then" that imply some sort of sequence:

quote:

---

Gen 2 (NIV):

​

5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

---

Going figuring would yield that the man was formed after the streams came up. To me, his point was that Gen 1 list some events in a different order than Gen 2 does, so they can't both be right.

quote:

---

For example, another problem some find is that though the plant life was created on day three, Genesis two says no seeds had yet sprouted because there was no man yet to till the ground.

​

Explanation: Notice in Genesis three, after the curse that the ground was cursed due to God's curse. Adam was to become a tiller of the ground and herbs/plants were to be his food, for the first time in his life. Notice that in Genesis one, the fruit of the tree was to be his fruit No tilling of the ground. All the need do was pluck the fruit of the trees.

---

As others have pointed out, this seems to be a clear misrepresentation. Genesis 2:5 seems to claim that there were no humans, and leads into their creation, so it is a bit implausible to suggest that it refers to a situation AFTER humans were created. And wouldn't the existence of the garden itself (planted in verses 2:8-9) contradict the idea that there were no plants growing ?This seems to be a clear case where the verses are IN sequence.No plants because there is no rain and no humans to look after the plants. (2:5)
God arranges a substitute for rain. (2:6)
God creates a man to look after the plants. (2:7)
God plants a garden. (2:8-9)
God sends the man to look after the garden. (2:15)The sequence makes perfect sense as written. On what basis should we assume that it is not sequential ?

AI have read it and will even post it for you to read.

quote:

---

Genesis 2

​

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

​

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
Adam and Eve
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

​

5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

​

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the groundtrees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

​

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

​

15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.

​

18 The LORD God said, It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.

​

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

​

But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

​

23 The man said,

​

This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.

​

24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

​

25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

---

Order and sequence.There are no plants because there is no rain and no gardener.Streams water the earth.God creates man from dust.Plants grow.Animals are created.Woman is created by cloning.That is the order and sequence of events in Genesis 2.Nothing there about earth being cursed.

I've checked the link you provided to Percy's post and, as Catholic Scientists says, his point was that the order of creation given in Genesis 1 is different from the order given in Genesis 2.The fact that both are supposedly sequential is in the surrouding text giving reasons for the creation of man and animals. So right there God made man AFTER he made animals to rule over the already created animals. And here we can see that man was created first and the animals were created so he wasn't alone.By giving this reason in Genesis 2, the text must be sequential. If the animals were created because man was alone and it wasn't good for him to be alone, that explicitly states that the order is man then animals. Yet in Genesis 1 the animals were already there when man was created, so he couldn't have been alone and needing animals.That's the contradiction that Percy was highlighting in his post. The reasoning given in the two chapters shows that the creation order of man and animals in each chapter is sequential, otherwise the reasoning stated makes no sense at all.So there's my evidence for this part of the two accounts being sequential - the language used in the accounts. What evidence do you have that they're not sequential?

Hi, Trixie.There is a little grammatical glitch involved in all of this, though. The King James Version of Gen 2:19 (which you cited) says this:

quote:

---

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.

---

However, in the New International Version, it says this:

quote:

---

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky.

---

The KJV's past tense is changed into the past perfect tense in the NIV. The use of past perfect specifically means that this element is being introduced out of chronological sequence: it happened before this point in the narrative, but not at this point. I can't speak to the correctness of using one tense or the other, but there is at least a way to weasel out here.Then, in verse 20, it says this:

quote:

---

So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

---

So, when I read the whole part about the creation of animals and man, to me it sounds more like it's saying this: From this, I don't know that there's much of a case for the two chapters contradicting one another in terms of the sequence of events. Of course, that hinges on whether or not the NIV's use of past perfect tense was justified.

I believe that this is an example of the NIV being guided by apologetic concerns rather than the text.

I have to agree with you, PaulK. The problem we have here is that the KJV and the NIV seem to be saying different things. It might be a small change grammatically, but it makes a huge difference to the meaning.This has some unfortunate implications for biblical inerrancy - which version is right?

Since Forever thinks inerrancy is so important I guess he should answer.

By my understanding the NIV is not the most reliable of translations because of issues like this. The KJV isn't that great either for a number of reasons (one of which is that the language is a little archaic now). I usually start with the New American Standard Bible which I have been told is one of the more accurate translations.
In the NASB Genesis 2:19 says this:

Somewhat off topic but it's important to remember that there were three major driving forces for the KJV, that it would be politically correct, not too offensive to the Roman Catholics and that it affirm the Divine Right of Kings.