|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Your theory is that the A&E story (Genesis 2:4-4:24) describes what happened in Genesis 1:1. Where does the Genesis 1 story (Genesis 1:2-2:3) take place given all the descendants from Adam to Noah in Genesis 5? Essentially you're implying that God reworked the planet after the "fall" and created mankind again. That doesn't bode well for doctrine. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi PD,
purpledawn writes: Your theory is that the A&E story (Genesis 2:4-4:24) describes what happened in Genesis 1:1. That is what Genesis 2:4 says no theory involved.
purpledawn writes: Where does the Genesis 1 story (Genesis 1:2-2:3) take place given all the descendants from Adam to Noah in Genesis 5? It begins in the evening found in Genesis 1:2 as the light period (Day) God created the Heaven and the Earth in had ended. The creation part ceased when God ceased His creation acts in Genesis 2:2. He will not resume creating until He creates a New Heaven and Earth as John tells us in Revelation chapter 21,and 22. But the story that began in Genesis 1:2 continues until this day and will end when the universe melts with fervent heat. Which Adam are you talking about the male or female Adam?
Moses writes: 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
This is the generations of Adam the male and female created in Genesis 1:27 in the image/likeness of God. It has nothing to do with the man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7.
purpledawn writes: Essentially you're implying that God reworked the planet after the "fall" and created mankind again. That doesn't bode well for doctrine. I am not implying, I am affirming that the text presents the series of events as described in the story in Genesis 2:4-25 and the story in Genesis 1:2-27. Where does it affect doctrine. Paul tells us by one man sin entered into the world.
Luke writes: Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: What I have affirmed takes nothing away from what Paul said. By this one man sin entered into the kosmos that is the entire universe. It is not just mankind. That is the reason we find:
John writes: Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John telling us God gave the Son to purchase redemption. Someone asked why this Earth will melt as Peter tells us and God create a New Heaven and Earth as John tells us. The reason is that sin entered into the universe and must be purged. Now if you have some specific doctrine in mind that is affected please share it. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:So much for affirming what the text says. quote:Then what are you going to do with the Genesis 4:25-26? That's part of the A&E story. I suppose the second Adam (Genesis 5) just happened to have a son named Seth who had a son named Enosh.
quote:Your theory shows that God had two chances to get it right and still couldn't stop evil. He then had to use the flood and still couldn't stop evil. That's three. quote:Actually kosmos does refer to mankind and your theory does impact what Paul said. In your theory, the first Adam is the one who brought sin into mankind. He and his family were destroyed and God created new people. Apparently he didn't filter out the "sin" potential from the medium he used. At least with the flood story, one man and his family continued, so it's at least a plausible continuance. With your theory, it isn't. quote:The redemption was supposedly because of the A&E fiasco. In your rendition, A&E were destroyed and God created new people. quote:With apocalyptic language, the planet isn't going to melt. Peter is supposedly talking in apocalyptic language, and not talking about the planet. Odds are he is talking about a new nation and government. quote:The two you provided make the point. Your theory breaks the connection between A&E's mistake and its supposed impact on mankind and the need for Christ. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Still convenient that you can go back to the original Hebrew when the KJV doesn't fit what you want, but dismiss when others try to understand what was originally written or understood. Message 133ICANT writes: Nothing matters except what is written in the KJV Bible as that is all that I am affirming in this thread. Message 15ICANT writes: 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. quote: Message 154ICANT writes: 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. You answered your own question. The point of studying dead languages is to understand what the words meant to the people when they were a spoken language. Edited by purpledawn, : Changed Subtitle 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4335 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear ICant,
Like the new string. :-} Sorry I could not get in on the first few postings; this past month has been a busy one for me.
ICant writes: The reason you have evening is because a light period has come to an end. The only reason for having a morning is the end of a dark period. Peg writes: The evening is a period without light, Actually evening is the period between the light period and the dark period. GreySeal and I have had an on-going discussion on this point. You are equating the words Day, Evening, and Morning with there primary definition completely ignoring that there are other usages (other definitions) for each word. Without posting three pages of material let me just give you an example of what I mean: The word ‘Day’ can be interpreted ‘literally’ as:
Day:
4. An analogous division of time for a planet other than the earth: the Martian day.5. The portion of a day allotted to work: an eight-hour day. 8. A time considered as propitious or opportune: His day will come. 9. A day of contest or the contest itself: to win the day. 10. Often, days. A particular time or period: the present day; in days of old. 11. Usually, days. Period of life or activity: His days are numbered. 12. Period of existence, power, or influence: in the day of the dinosaurs. 13. Light 1 (def. 19a). Idioms14. Call it a day, to stop one's activity for the day or for the present; quit temporarily: After rewriting the paper, she decided to call it a day. 15. Day in, day out, every day without fail; regularly: They endured the noise and dirt of the city day in, day out. Also, day in and day out. Each of these definitions (taken from Dictionary.com) is a ‘literal’ ‘interpretation’ of the word ‘Day’. So, the word ‘Day’ can be interpreted ‘literally’ as ‘Era’, ‘Age’, etc. Also note that Hebrew (as I understand it) does not have one word for ‘day’ (add an ‘s’ for ‘Days’), another word to describe Eras, ages, etc. So your suppositions that:
The reason you have evening is because a light period has come to an end. The only reason for having a morning is the end of a dark period. Evening is the period between the light period and the dark period. only apply using one specific definition of each word. So, my question is:
Is it not possible that Day , Evening , and Morning in this context may be referring to ‘unspecified periods of time ’ and not to ‘Sun up to Sun down ’ ‘Days’? If Not; Why Not? The best way to misinterpret what someone is saying is to presuppose what they are going to say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi JRTjr,
JRTjr writes: If Not; Why Not? Because God's definition trumps any other definition or use.
Moses writes: Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. The Heaven and the Earth was created in a day. God called the light day. Light had ended with darkness in Genesis 1:2. That dark period ended with the beginning of the light period called morning. The combination of the 2 was called the first day. The end of that light period followed by a period of darkness that ended with the light period called morning was the second day. This process is repeated through day 6 ending with the morning of the 7th day. There is no way you can get multiple light and dark periods in any of those days. So however long they were there was one period of light and one period of darkness. If they were a billion years in length then it would have been light for 500 million years and dark for 500 million years. Is there anyway that plant and animal life could exist 500 million years without light? What would be the temperature of the Earth after 500 million years of darkness? The only period that could have been longer than they are today was the first light period. There could have been an indefinite period of light in which every thing grew that produced all our oil, natural gas and the many fossils we find. Glad to see you finally made it. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4335 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear ICant,
Thank you for your response; and thank you for giving a well thought out and logical answer to my question. I wholeheartedly agree that God's definition trumps any other definition or usages. So, with that in mind; I have a few questions on other things that relate to this question of ‘Day’s’.
Do you believe that our ‘Sun’, ‘Moon’, and ‘Stars’ were created on the fourth day? (Genesis 1: 14 - 19) — If so Why; if not Why Not? — God tells Adam, in Genesis 2: 16 - 17, that the ‘Day’ that they eat of the fruit of the tree of ‘the Knowledge of Good and Evil’ they would surely die. The Bible also states: 5So altogether Adam lived 930 years, and he died. (Genesis 5:5) How do you reconcile these two passages? When, do you believe, the Seventh day (when God rested from His creation) ended; and why do you believe that way? Thank you for your time and effort in these matters, God bless us, every one,JRTjr P.S. Please note here that all of these events are recorded in the book of Genesis. {all Biblical references are taken from the Amplified Bible}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi JRTjr,
JRTjr writes: Do you believe that our ‘Sun’, ‘Moon’, and ‘Stars’ were created on the fourth day? (Genesis 1: 14 - 19) — If so Why; if not Why Not? — No. They were created in Genesis 1:1. They were not visible at Genesis 1:2. Whatever was blocking them from being viewed from earth was removed and they were made visible on the fourth day. In the original text bara' was not used concerning the sun, moon, and stars. The Hebrew word bara' means: 1) to create, shape, form.Forming is the act of bringing into existence. The Hebrew word `asah used which means: 1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make. There is nothing in there which means to bring into existence. In fact the only two places in Genesis 1:2=27 that bara' is used is in verses 21 concerning great whales and mankind in verse 27. Nothing else was formed or created in those verses.
JRTjr writes: God tells Adam, in Genesis 2: 16 - 17, that the ‘Day’ that they eat of the fruit of the tree of ‘the Knowledge of Good and Evil’ they would surely die. And if I am correct in what I have presented in this thread he died the same day that he was formed from the dust of the ground. If he did not die that day God lied. I have presented that the day the Lord God created the Heaven and the Earth was a light period that had ended in the evening we find in Genesis 1:2 as darkness had come. I have also presented that everything in Genesis 2:4-25 took place in that light period as claimed in Genesis 2:4.
JRTjr writes: The Bible also states: 5So altogether Adam lived 930 years, and he died. (Genesis 5:5) How do you reconcile these two passages? Simple the man that was formed from the dust of the ground in the beginning during the light period God created the Heaven and the Earth is not the man that spoken of in Genesis 5:1, 2.
Moses writes: Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. These two verses specify the mankind that was created in Genesis 1:27, when God created mankind in His image/likeness male and female and called their name Adam. This man and woman was created after everything else had been created. They were told to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. They were never placed in a garden. They were not forbidden from eating the fruit of any tree. In fact they were told they could eat from all trees. These verses do not refer to the man that was formed from the dust of the ground before any other life form. Nor is it talking about the woman who was made from the rib of the man after all other life forms. This couple was placed in a garden. The man was forbidden from eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This is the man that was told he would die the day he ate the fruit.
JRTjr writes: When, do you believe, the Seventh day (when God rested from His creation) ended; and why do you believe that way? There was a light period that existed called the seventh day, the day God ceased creating. That light period ended when darkness came which ended with the morning of the 8th day. But God has not resumed creating yet. He will when He replaces the universe that melts with fervent heat as Peter tell us it will and John tells us we will have a New Heaven and a New Earth that will have no sun, moon or seas.
JRTjr writes: P.S. Please note here that all of these events are recorded in the book of Genesis. So is the flood.So is the tower of Babel. So is the scattering of the people. So is the dividing of the land mass. So is a lot of other things. The book of Genesis covers over 2300 years, so it has a lot of information in it.
JRTjr writes: {all Biblical references are taken from the Amplified Bible} I specified in the OP I would be using the KJV, LXX and Hebrew texts. Everything I have affirmed was from these three sources. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi PD,
purpledawn writes: Still convenient that you can go back to the original Hebrew when the KJV doesn't fit what you want, but dismiss when others try to understand what was originally written or understood. I was just informing you they did not exist in the original text. Then being there does not change what the text says they just muddy the water.
purpledawn writes: You answered your own question. The point of studying dead languages is to understand what the words meant to the people when they were a spoken language. Words have meanings and it makes no difference what some people think about what the words mean. The words used in the Hebrew text had specific meanings. The words had the same meaning whether the people understood the meaning or not. English words have specific meanings. But a lot of people do not and will not accept the meaning of the words supplying their own definition. Example your discussions with Peg. The English words have the same meaning whether people understand the meaning or not. I had not answered this post as I did not see where it was beneficial to the discussion. Is there a story told in Genesis 1:2-27? Is there a story told in Genesis 2:4-25? Are the two stories the same? If you answer yes how can you bring them into agreement of the events described in them? 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote: quote:This wasn't the post that really needed an answer. Message 258 is the one that addresses how your theory impacts doctrine and doesn't really fit in 1:1. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi PD,
purpledawn writes: ICANT quote:So much for affirming what the text says. According to the text: Was the Heaven and the Earth created in Genesis 1:1? Was it dark in Genesis 1:2? Does 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,"? Does that verse say the Heaven and the Earth was created in the day? Does it say in the night? I have affirmed and am affirming that: The Heaven and the Earth was created in a light period of undetermined length of existence. The history of that day is found in Genesis 2:4-4:24. During this day man was formed from the dust of the Ground and God breathed the breath of life into him and he became a living being. God planted a garden and caused vegetation and trees to grow out of the ground. God put this man in the garden and forbid him to eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God also formed the fowl of the air and creatures from the ground. God also took a rib from the man and made a woman. This woman was deceived and ate the fruit. She gave to the man and he did eat also. God kicked this man out of the garden. Sometime before a dark period this man died. Now where did I miss affirming what the text said?
purpledawn writes: Then what are you going to do with the Genesis 4:25-26? That's part of the A&E story. Who said they belong to the A&E story?
Genesis 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD. These verses take place after 9 generations of people. If they each reproduced at the age of 18 that would be 162 years. If this Adam had his first child on day one he would be at least 162 years old. The man in Genesis 5:3 was 130 years old when Seth was born. Therefore Genesis 4:25 and 26 do not belong to the story in Genesis 2:4 through Genesis 4:24. The math does not compute. These two verses had to be embleshed to make the two stories into one story as most people beleved it to be as most still do.
purpledawn writes: Your theory shows that God had two chances to get it right and still couldn't stop evil. God created evil why would He try to stop it?
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things]. Without evil mankind does not have a choice.
purpledawn writes: Actually kosmos does refer to mankind I can't find anywhere kosmos was translated mankind.
purpledawn writes: The redemption was supposedly because of the A&E fiasco. In your rendition, A&E were destroyed and God created new people. Not only A&E but at least 9 generations of people who built at least one city, were destroyed.
purpledawn writes: With apocalyptic language, the planet isn't going to melt. Peter is supposedly talking in apocalyptic language, and not talking about the planet. Odds are he is talking about a new nation and government. You don't have to take Peter's word for it as Science agrees with him. Science says the earth is going to melt. Many scientist say the universe and the earth are going to melt in a big crunch and then create a new universe and earth. As they believe that has happened several times already. So I opt for the literal meaning that everything is going to melt as Peter said and God will create a new Heaven and Earth as John said.
purpledawn writes: Your theory breaks the connection between A&E's mistake and its supposed impact on mankind and the need for Christ. Are you now claiming that the penalty of sin is inheritable? Why would my theory break the connection between the disobedience of the man formed from the dust of the ground and mankind today. By the disobedience of this man sin entered into the universe. The penalty of sin is death. So by the disobedience of this one man sin and death became a part of the laws of the universe, just like gravity is a law of the universe. So where do I have a doctrinal problem? 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:We don't disagree on what words are in the KJV, which is all you can positively assert. Your hypothesis that the A&E story takes place in Genesis 1:1 is not something you can assert without reasonable support. Your hypothesis has less to back it up than the Documentary Hypothesis. quote:The implication that man died before a dark period, is not in the text. That is your own hypothesis. quote:By saying that these two verses had to be embellished takes your argument outside "affirming" just what is written. As written, Genesis 2:25-26 is a continuation of the A&E story. Per the Documentary Hypothesis, Genesis 25-26 are part of the A&E story. Chapter 5, with all those ages that didn't add up, was written by the Redactor. The Redactor additions are the "embellishments" added to make stories fit together. Also the phrase in Genesis 2:4, "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.", was also an addition by the Redactor to blend the stories into one.
quote:I agree mankind needs the evil inclination as well as the good. quote:Sigh! Again, I expect better from you. kosmos If you disagree, we can hash it out in the appropriate thread: Not The Planet quote:Now you accept science reality over what the writer was probably saying, but not the reality of what the writer was probably telling his audience. I agree with what the author probably said to his audience. I don't agree with what you think the author told his audience. There's a difference. quote:The text doesn't support this destruction. That is your hypothesis. quote:Don't confuse threads. We were talking about doctrines that your hypothesis impacts. quote:This is where your hypothesis makes God look more ludicrous than the atheists' view of current doctrine. We're channeling the other thread a bit, but the sin issue is a good point of how your hypothesis affects doctrine. In your hypothesis the Adam and Eve who ate from the tree and the snake who tempted them were destroyed before Genesis 1:2. So all mankind who suffered the consequences of A&E's disobedience were gone. Your contention is that when the first set of mankind was destroyed that "sin" remained, existing on its own within the laws of nature. You're personifying again. Without choice, there can be no virtue or sin. Planets, stars, space, plants, rocks, gravity, etc. don't have a choice and can't sin. You said God created evil and meant to create evil. So after the destruction of A&E and 9 generations of people, God created new people with the knowledge of good and evil and they were still created mortal. Since God chose to create man with good and evil inclinations and the ability to choose between them; it is God's will that man be able to choose. Since sin is disobedience to the will of God and virtue is to follow the will of God, by making choices, mankind is following the will of God; whether those choices are good or evil. As his chosen people, additional rules were given to the Hebrews to follow.
quote:You've broken the connection between the disobedience of Adam and the purpose for Christ. You spin a great tale to get to trouble in River City, but the text doesn't support your hypothesis. You are no longer going by what is written in the text or by what reality supports. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
These two verses specify the mankind that was created in Genesis 1:27, when God created mankind in His image/likeness male and female and called their name Adam. This man and woman was created after everything else had been created. They were told to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. They were never placed in a garden. They were not forbidden from eating the fruit of any tree. In fact they were told they could eat from all trees. These verses do not refer to the man that was formed from the dust of the ground before any other life form. Nor is it talking about the woman who was made from the rib of the man after all other life forms. This couple was placed in a garden. The man was forbidden from eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This is the man that was told he would die the day he ate the fruit.
ICANT, the Adam and his wife in Genesis 2 is the same Adam in Genesis 1. Both chapters are about the first human. They are just told from two different angles. Now is that something you are not saying or are saying ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Jay,
jaywill writes: ICANT, the Adam and his wife in Genesis 2 is the same Adam in Genesis 1. That is what I have been told all my life. No one has convinced me of that as of yet. The man in Genesis 2:7 was formed from the dust of the ground before any life form, Plant, animal, or fowl. Vegetation including trees was produced next after God created a garden. Genesis 2:8, 9. Please notice there is nothing said about seed. Man was then given a command not to eat fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil under the penalty of death. All creatures were then formed from the ground. Genesis 2:19 Please notice there is nothing said about kind. Woman was then made from a rib taken from the man. Genesis 2:22. If you pay close attention you will notice everything was formed from the ground except the woman who was made from the rib. The mankind in Genesis 1:27 was created after all plant, water, air and land creatures. There is no source of material mentioned. If you pay attention they were created male and female.
Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. These people were blessed. They were told to be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth. They were told every herb bearing seed upon all the earth and every tree whose fruit yielded seed was to be for meat. No exceptions. They were never placed in a garden and forbidden eating of a specific tree. Now see how many hoops you can jump through and make the man formed from the dust of the ground before any other life form be the same man that was created after all living life forms. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
These people were blessed. They were told to be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth. They were told every herb bearing seed upon all the earth and every tree whose fruit yielded seed was to be for meat. No exceptions. They were never placed in a garden and forbidden eating of a specific tree. Now see how many hoops you can jump through and make the man formed from the dust of the ground before any other life form be the same man that was created after all living life forms.
Okay. I see your point. But let me just address this matter of man's creation. I am not attempting to remove all discrepencies. I am just focusing on the issue of Adam. The man created in Genesis chapter one, I take as the first man. I take as the initial creation of man and man's beginning. I have no reason to assume that God is not talking about the beginning of man: Genesis 1:26 and 27 should be about initial man, the first man. Do you agree ? Now, can the man in Genesis 2 be a different subsequent man? I have to take the man in Genesis 2 as the first man:
"So also it is written, The first man, Adam, became a living soul ..." (1 Cor. 15:45a) This surely is a reference to Genesis 2:
"And Jehovah God formed man with the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." That was Adam, the first man. So while conceding some difficult to reconcile statements between chapters one and two, I have to conclude that the first man is being discribed in each of the two paradoxically juxtaposed accounts. If the woman was brought into existence on the same sixth day sometime, would it not be a true statement that "God created man in His own image. In the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (Genesis 1:27) ? Of chapter two, G.H Pember says:
"Hence in this second account reference is made to other works of the Six Days only when they happen to be immediately connected with the main subject, and without any regard to the order in which they were performed" [Earth Earliest Ages, G.H. Pember, pg. 73, Revell] Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024