Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2

If we aren't descended from them, how did we inherit their fruit catalyzed Lamarckian degeneration into sin and infamy? If we are descended from the perfect pair made in the image etc. why ain't we perfect?Was Cain the child of the garden of Eden pair, or of the other pair some awesomely indefinite time long afterward? If the latter, how did he happen to move just east of Eden? If the former, then Seth was their son too, as he was spoken of as a replacement for Abel whom Cain slew. But if we aren't descended from them, then why does the Adam -- Seth -- Enos genealogy from those garden passages make it into the other guy's bloodline and ride along all the way up to Luke?Or, if the guy in chapter 2 somehow isn't the guy in chapter 3, why is it such a smooth easy consistent passage from one to the other, with the same named setting and with characters having the same names and attributes. Were there not only two Ish and Ishshah, but two Edens, two Tree of Life, perhaps even two YHWH?Try to be clear here. Multiplying entities needlessly is, you know, fun to watch.

So in other words you can't reconcile your version of Gap Theory with the genealogies that give Genesis their purpose and which are affirmed and reaffirmed throughout the Bible. And whenever anyone asks you about this discrepancy, you just dodge. That's kind of pitiful, don't you think?Real Gap Theory at least attempts to answer every question raised not only by the Bible itself but by the findings of science in areas like geology, archaeology and physics. Your version can't even reconcile Genesis chapter 3 with Genesis chapter 3.

I agree, and remain interested in your chronology. With the minor correction that the Week of Weeks document runs from Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 or 2:4, depending whether that's a header or a footer. You appear to be claiming that the Adam and Ishshah of Genesis 2:1 through 3:19 are not the same people as the Adam and Ishshah of Genesis 3:20. But they obviously are, as the story continues with skins for clothing and their expulsion from Eden.Or perhaps you stick the break between 3:24 and 4:1, but if so why is that Ishshah also named Eve and why wasn't the original Eve actually the mother of all living, as 3:20 states? And why do these new unconnected humans live right near Eden, so that when Cain takes off, he moves to the land of Nod "on the east of Eden" in 4:16?Or perhaps you stick the break between 4:24 and 4:25, but if so, why does that Eve bear a son again, and why is that son, Seth, referred to as a replacement for Abel whom Cain slew? And even with all this, Seth then begets Enos in 4:26. Thus, after the real recognizable literary break, between 4:26 and 5:1, the genealogy commences by identifying the Adam who begets Seth who begets Enos, as the Adam who was created in the likeness, male and female, and as the common ancestor of everyone worth keep tracking of.So show the break. I understand you object to certain parts of the Masoretic or Authorized text, fine, let's clear up which and why. I'm obviously not getting it, make me smarter than I am.

The venerable ICANT is running a bible study in Genesis 1-5, with emphasis on 1 and 2. He is using a couple of traditional gimmicks to make this patch of scripture more interesting and compelling, but he has combined them together in a strikingly uncommon way. Two CreationsIt has been recognized for a nice long time that the seven days in Genesis 1 and the garden bit in Genesis 2 are radically different kinds of writing. Differences in order of events and details and style are very distinct.Standard literary analysis explains this as signifying that there are two different authors, who have been patched together along different scribal markings characterizing different historical periods; and that the purposes of the authors were different, and involved different contexts and applications.The normal fundamentalist defense to this line of thought is to say Nuh Uh and stick their fingers in their ears. More expressive responses tend to work by marginalizing the differences, ignoring specific words, claiming that things are figurative in the same text that had to be literal all through just 2 minutes ago, and so on. Essentially an advanced version of Nuh Uh. Obviously this is insufficient, which led to this thread. Gap TheoryFor a couple of thousand years rabbis have been pointing out the word for "is" in Hebrew is also the word for "become". This is particularly important because YHWH, "I am that I am" is a form of that word. Anyway, when we look at Genesis 1:2 with this insight, we notice immediately that it might well be "became without form and void", in other words there is a gap between 1:1 and 1:2 of no definable size. Scribes need to notice this sort of thing because they have to decide whether to stick a paragraph mark in there.So as the Targums were being rendered into Aramaic, and various people were getting nailed to this, or fed to those, this sort of thing was already exciting people like one of Paul's church fathers. This became a growth industry, from Origen to Milton people are throwing tons of creativity toward filling that tenuous gap with all sorts of things totally unsupported by a plain reading of scripture. And right at the end of the ecclesiastical reign of terror, some grateful geologists tended to point to it as good theological grounds not to burn them at the stake for doing the work required to properly investigate the real age of the earth. ICANT AffirmSo what our study leader has done is to take these two concepts, and instead of explaining them away, he has tossed them together to eat each other. Extra creation? Fine. Slide it into the magic gap. In order to do this he has to gloss 4:25&26, which is actually a lot cleaner than glossing every 4th word in chapter 1 and 2. From a strong Masoretic position, one can can say that the "replace" language in the Hebrew of 4:25 is meant to refer not only to Seth for Abel but also to their respective parents.He's taking a hard beating from his own side over a verse in Matthew (LOL) which seems to identify the male and female created he them from chapter 1 with the one flesh from chapter 2, nothing else anyone has tried has hurt his argument much. And man, have we been looking close at Genesis 1-5, which is the real point anyway isn't it?Edited by Iblis, : lost a verse somewhere, everyone watch out you don't step on it

Duh, the real one. The one not peed in by sectarian fruit loops who have to go out and gouge out their dates carved in stone to be replaced by, new dates, carved in stone. The one not paraphrased, mutilated, dumbed down, or pepped up. The one that preserved the idioms and chiasms of Hebrew and Greek and thereby shaped modern English into the awesome language that it is. The one read by Milton, ordered by Jefferson, quoted by Lincoln, and used to spank Billy Carter. The non-fake one.In short, the one specified in the course description for this study. Where is your copy and why do you think you can get by using that Classic Comic ??? Aeon does mean "world" as well as "age". Thus it is the perfect choice in Greek to describe a series of two (or more) sequential worlds as in ICANT's proposal.

Excellent answer. I've always admired your composure.Anyway, before we get shut down, I'd like to point out that the vast majority of the "changes" you mention fall into two categories: bitched type and similar printing errors, and then spelling regularization. Most of the actual doctrinal decisions were hammered out between Wycliffe and Tyndale at the one end and the Bishops and Geneva at the other. And all of them were debated by the 1611 Version team, and all of them including the printing and spelling fixes were debated yet again by the 1769 Edition team at Cambridge.One of my favorite examples is "strain at a gnat" from Matthew 23:24. The translators rather uniformly wrote "strain out", the printers accidentally published "strain ot", the correctors mistakenly made it "strain at", and it passed into literary usage that way. The editors debated it thoroughly, couldn't reach unanimity, and went on a field trip to ask random people what they thought it meant to see if it was understandable in the form it now had. As it turned out, it was, so they agreed to leave it so.This is part of why the KJV can really be described (humorously) as "inerrant". Anything that has been debated for 300 years with all the variants and reasonings at hand and after such discourse has been left as it is, isn't an error, it's deliberate.. . .Anyway I'm stuck with it, Book of Eli style. Seeing as how you are going to have to be dragging out the Greek and Hebrew anyway, why not use the best literary version in English? It has the complete text and as I mentioned, preserves the idioms, unlike the paraphrases and Nestle's Crunch versions.We can argue it more some other time in some other thread, here we are supposed to be doing science with ICANT's little puzzle box.

I am looking, his subject is how the things we can see and know are made out of things we don't know and can't see, and he mentions worlds and creation. The making, the world we know, in this case, is what's in Genesis 1:2-2:3; that which it is made from, the world we don't know, is whatever is going on in from 1:1 to 1:2. Is it just chaos and void? Is it the fall of the angels and extinction of dinosaurs and maybe a black hole or seven? Is it ICANT's Raising Cain scenario? By definition, we don't know.

One of us has missed something, and I don't think it's me. He is specifically not trying to fit 2ff into day 6. That is the normal fundie position, it is for example what Peg is trying to do. ICANT has recognized the problems with this, and instead is trying to fit 2:4-4:24 into the gap between 1:1 and 1:2, call it day 0.