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

No. Thanks for the apology. It is unfortunately common for Christians to say that scientists are "inventing" things or making things up to cover something embarrassing, when that's not true at all. Almost always, the Christians have no real information upon which to base those accusations, but they just say it anyway. Well, sort of, but this is hardly the way to phrase it. The universe is expanding, so that means a few minutes ago it was smaller. If you extrapolate that backwards, thinking it gets smaller than smaller, then it shrinks back to tiny or nothing. That gives you the idea for the big bang.That's not "inventing something." That's trying to figure out what's true. After you get the idea, you then test it. You offer predictions. "If the big bang were true, then what would we expect to see?" Then you check those predictions. If they aren't accurate, then you try a new hypothesis until you get one that explains what we see in every aspect. That's science, and it works so well that it can make pigs fly! (in an airplane)As for ending up thinking like us and saying things don't line up. I believe in God and in Jesus. I think the life I live, as part of a community of believers, is the most Scriptural thing going on in America. (Not everyone would agree, of course, but that's how I see it.) However, honesty requires me to admit that when 2 Kings 16 says Baasha died in the 26th year af King Asa and 2 Chr. 16 says he attacked Juda in the 36th year of King Asa, there's an impossible contradiction there.Who said faith requires that the Bible be inerrant and word for word inspired? Fundamentalists, that's who, and I don't see that they are producing the kind of fruit (to use Biblical terminology) that makes me want to regard them as the prophets/teachers I want to listen to. Where's the unity and love that Jesus spoke of as proof that he was God's Son (John 17:20-23)? They don't have it, and they never will as long as they are not honest and hide from truth, because Jesus is the Truth. He is on the side of the honest ones, not the dishonest ones.We have 200 people here in West Tennessee who would lay their lives down for the Gospel tomorrow, but not a one of them believes the Bible is inerrant or word for word inspired.Anyway, I don't think you lose anything by acknowledging what's true. I think God really honors those who love the truth.

your opinions on your wife are subjective and can wax and wane depending on your interactions together and with others. however, facts and evidences for the big bang and any other robust scientific theory are objective, testable, and falsifiable. i don't know how much intelligence it takes to form an opinion but i am sure that my opinions about your wife (if i had any) would not show you anything about my intellect.maybe realizing that we have myths {yes the bible is a mythological text whose stories were coopted from the babylonians, egyptians, greeks, romans, persians, mithrians (trinity idea put into christianity during its rise in rome), etc.}, for a reason and science for another reason shows more intellect than trying to either marry the two or use one to refute the other.

Hi big guy. I tried to follow this and discovered that 2 Kings 16 doesn't mention Asa. Should be 1 Kings 16. Not a problem, really, because in reading 2 Kings 16, I stumbled upon another really great contradiction. I have posted it as a new topic. Any comments?db

Thank you for your response and I will try to learn more about science. Well maybe there are things in the Bible that there are some problems with. Maybe. It was written in another language for one thing. I think some in Hebrew and some in Greek.Well about this looking backwards business: The problem with that is we don't know how far we can go with that. I'm sorry that I just have a problem with packing all of the universe into one little speck. I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?Now I see a double standard here with this. Over on another page you guys are saying you can't put a man inside a whale. But you don't even blink when some scientist says you can put the entire universe into the stomach of that same whale.Don' be mad at me now. I just can't see how both things can be true at the same time. So science wants some pretty tall tales to be true. On the other hand the Bible gets treated pretty shabby if there's some little thing in there they don't like.

quote:

---

Now I see a double standard here with this. Over on another page you guys are saying you can't put a man inside a whale. But you don't even blink when some scientist says you can put the entire universe into the stomach of that same whale.

---

Well, I don't think anyone would say you can't put a man inside a whale. Just chop him up into little bits, or squeeze him until he's packed tightly into a little ball, then toss him in the whale's mouth, and let the whale swallow.The issue is putting a living man inside a whale, and having him survive the experience.

---

"It isn't faith that makes good science, it's curiosity."
-Professor Barnhard, The Day the Earth Stood Still

No one should get mad at any one who has trouble with some of the things we have learned in modern cosmology and physics. They are extraordinarily difficult to wrap your head around. On top of that it seems to keep getting worse and worse.However, that doesn't make them wrong. And arguing that something isn't right because you find it incredible isn't a scientific arguement of any kind.There is rather a lot of evidence for the current ideas about the nature of our universe. It is also very clear that we don't know everything yet.As far as the two issues of a man surviving in a whale and the universe being smaller than that; they are of completely different natures. We know a lot about both whales and men and what we know excludes this as a likely occurance. We also know some things about physics and the universe we see and what we know suggests that the universe was, in fact, much, much, much smaller 13.7 billion years ago. The things we know about all these different things allow us to see the difference between whales and universes.

There is a very simple answer. Gen 1 can be thought of as a brief overview of the creation while Gen 2 is a detailed account. Take my word on this I teach literature and this literary form is seen on all the books of Moses. As to the order of creation, you have misread the chapter, there is no contradiction. Did it happen in a literal seven 24 hour days. Im wrestling with that one. On one hand, the text refers to night and day being seperated which suggests a means by which to measure time. On the other hand, Adam was told to name ALL of the animals and plants on "one" of those days and I am sure you can see how difficult that would be in the time allowed.

Quote: Don' be mad at me now. I just can't see how both things can be true at the same time. So science wants some pretty tall tales to be true. On the other hand the Bible gets treated pretty shabby if there's some little thing in there they don't like."AMEN BROTHER!!!Its easier to have faith in a non-personal, naturalistic ideal that holds no one accountable for their actions as opposed to having faith in a personal creator who does hold us accountable. When we were teens, didn't we want more than ever to be free of our parents rules. Those unfair rules designed to limit our enjoyment of life and free exercise thereof. Or, were they just trying to keep us safe because they loved us?

We are talking about literalists here, not people who accept that it can be loose. While you don't say it's not literal, you definitely allow for that with, "On the other hand, Adam was told to name ALL of the animals and plants on "one" of those days and I am sure you can see how difficult that would be in the time allowed."On top of that, the contradiction remains. The order is different in the two stories, which is a contradiction for literalists. In the first story, man is created to have dominion over the animals, which were already created. In the second one, man is created first, and he's all alone, and the animals are created as possible companions for him, and then woman comes afterward. So not only is there a difference in order, but there's a difference in the purposes of their creation as well.That's not solved by one being an overview and the other detailed. The overview has details that are contradicted by the more detailed account.

Isn't it believed to have been Moses who wrote genesis? Adam and Eve didn't write a single word, so the account being read was first put on paper over a thousand years later. Its definately not a first hand account, so errors are definately to be expected.
The fact Gen 1 and 2 don't match simply means the writer rushed things, or didn't read his work carefully. Which is to be believed? Does it really matter?

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are two different Creation stories. Some take them at literal value as written. Others see the overall message. God is the source of all love, life, and wisdom. God made man seperate from other animals. God allowed a free will paradigm which led to the Fall of man. But wait...thats in Genesis 3. Any other questions?
I am not a literalist, remember. I only see truth in the overall message of the story. Absolute truth, to be sure.

What if!! What if Genesis 1 is the "design" stage and Genesis 2 is the "manafacturing" stage? But God does not do things "on paper" because he has this giant "simulator" or "virtual reality" that is like the holodeck (I am reasonably serious so don't shrug yet).I will be slightly verbose knowing that not all here are famaliar with the two chapters. I have attempted to skip over any "doctrine" and I apologize if any is seen.In the simulator (vs 1 - called beginning?) He:
2.a "sees" the earth without form or as a bunch of atoms
2.b "the deep" and "the waters" are ...
3 "sees" a need for light generally
4 designed for a day/night cycle
5.a gave the day/night cycle a name
5.b designed for a cycle of days
6 designed a watering/harmful ray protection system
7
8.a watering on the earth and ray protection above it
8.b continued the day/night cycle
9 designed "seas" and "dry land"
10
11 designed "plant" life
12 self perpetuating
13 continued the day/night cycle
14 designed a "lighting/signs/clock/calendar" system for the earth
15-19
20 designed water and air-based "animal" life
21 self perpetuating
22 and abundant
23
24 designed "animal" life
25 self perpetuating
26 designed "humans" to look and act like them
27 male and female
28 a greater than any of the creation so far
29 designed a training course
30
31
1 decided the design was necessary and sufficient
2 defined the week cycle
3 set aside one special day for us to rest from daily labor
4 recaps the design
5 before the real earth
6 in the working simulator.
7 Now, He starts the creation with the first man (life from non-life)
8 and put the plants in the garden in the east of a land called Eden (the water and land are alread there)
9 for beauty and food and education
10 and formed a river to flow into the garden then out to the rest of the world
11-14
15 and put in a trained caretaker (without the status of God)
16-17
18 and without a woman
19.a named Adam
19.b created the animals
20.a let Adam name them
20.b noted that Adam and the yet unnamed woman were not yet together
21 implemented sleep for mankind and made, equal to Adam
22 made a woman
23
24
25 both completely inocent
3:20 and Adam called his wife Eve (since they would now have children?)So the design took six days with no length of time defined for the creation. I am sure every major craft follows the design/implement strategy. Are these verses intended to teach us to design before we implement?Thank you for reading. I look forward to your comments.Bob, Alice, and Eve

I don't have a bible with me at the moment, but in chapter 2 I think it just said God created all the beasts of the earth, not that he created them right then at that moment.Is there something in the text that shows it was talking about the actual act of creation occurring at that moment?

It sort of depends on how you interpret the text. The first bit is rather tricky. I'll quite the NIV translation:

quote:

---

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 the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

---

I guess you can stretch it to state that the bit about streams indicates also the creation of all animals. But that would be quite a bit of a stretch. If you take it litterally, it does state that God made man directly after the earth was watered.

Hi Everyone.I am new to this forum, but have lurked for a while, and learned a lot about the topics. In this post I'm asking for help from those who know more about the Bible than I do, which is just about everyone . .I am corresponding with a friend about Bible inconsistencies, and raised the difference between Gen 1&2. Her reply does not really fit with the biblical account as I understand it."...So it was in the sixth creative period that land animals were formed.
...The historical account tells us that the Creator of the globe and life on it put the man he had made in a gardenlike area 'to cultivate it and take care of it'(Gen. 2:15). At that time the Creator may still have been producing new animal kinds. The Bible says 'God was forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens, and He began bringing them to to the man to see what he would call each one. . . "My correspondent seems confident that this resolves the inconsistency, but I cannot agree, and also am not certain that the tense of the verse is used correctly. I'd be very grateful for some other opinions.For the record, my understanding of Gen 1 & 2 at present is as outlined by Sylas in post 53 of the"Genesis: is it to be taken literally" thread.