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 ?