The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

You jumped backed to animals. Can we address plants first?

Do you maintain that Genesis 2 does not say that man was created before plants?

_________________
Cobra (the car, not the poisonous reptile)
all scripture is NRSV unless otherwise noted

No not really, i had interpreted that in response 2, however, you never dealt with it, so here it is again:

[quote]Ok so please explain to me the exegesis of chapter 2, the way I interpret it, v.4 is speaking of the creation of the heaven and earth (day 1 of creation) in v.5 the "before" is refering to the heavens and earth (again day 1) any plant of the field was created (which is correct since that happened on day 3 of creation); had not caused it to rain (which is correct again day 3); there was no man (day 6); mist went up (day 3). So basically everything being recapped in v.5-6 are things that happened after the creation of the heavens and earth, the heavens and earth are the context of the subject being spoken of in v.5-6. Nowhere does it state that the plants were created before man.You would have to divorce the subject of v.4 "the heavens and earth" from verses 5-6 which follow, that is unsound.[/quote]

So again i would like you opinion as to the way i interpreted the text, surely i can be wrong, but your response never dealt with my interpretation, rather you restated your premise that plants were created before man, i would like you to think through it and tell me why my interpretation is wrong.

The text says "In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up...then the Lord God formed man"

I am not a Hebrew scholar, so I rely on others who are.

And I try to rely on a plain reading of the text. When there were not plants, then God formed man" seems plain to me. The notes of Hebrew scholars who did translations supports that.

I have already listed the NET Bible notes. They say this is saying man was created back before anything was growing.

The NRSV notes says the Genesis 2 creation story has a "different style and order of events." It adds that "Animals are created after the first human rather than before."

Three questions:
1) In your interpretation, which day (1, 2, 3...?) is referred to in "In the day that the Lord made the earth and the heavens?"
2) In your interpretation, which day (1, 2, 3...?) did this occur: So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man ?
3) Do you have any documentation of Hebrew scholars who support your view that "before the plants" refers to the day in which the Lord made the earth and the heavens rather than the plain reading of the English text which says man was created before plants?

_________________
Cobra (the car, not the poisonous reptile)
all scripture is NRSV unless otherwise noted

You Asked me:

Three questions:
1) In your interpretation, which day (1, 2, 3...?) is referred to in "In the day that the Lord made the earth and the heavens?"

DAY ONE

2) In your interpretation, which day (1, 2, 3...?) did this occur: So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man ?

5th DAY FOR BIRDS and 6th DAY FOR BEAST

3) Do you have any documentation of Hebrew scholars who support your view that "before the plants" refers to the day in which the Lord made the earth and the heavens rather than the plain reading of the English text which says man was created before plants?

NO, I DON'T THINK IT IS NECESSARY, SEE PORTIONS OF TWO ARTICLES BELOW:

Genesis 1 and 2 are said to contradict each other in the relative creation-order of plants and man. In chapter 1, it is argued, plants were created on the third day of the initial week (11-12), and man was made on the sixth day (26ff.), whereas in chapter 2, plants and herbs seem not to appear until after the formation of man (5ff.). The real problem exists only in the mind of the critic. There are possible means by which to resolve the alleged difficulty.

Some suggest that in Genesis 1 the original creation of the botanical world is in view, while in Genesis 2 the emphasis is upon the fact that plant reproduction had not commenced, for as yet there was not sufficient moisture, nor a cultivator of the ground, which factors are remedied in verses 6-7 (Jacobus, 1864, 1:96).

Others agree that entirely different matters are in view in these respective accounts. In Genesis 1:11-12 vegetation in general is under consideration, but in Genesis 2:5ff. the writer is discussing the specific sort of vegetation that requires human cultivation. It has been observed "that the words rendered plant, field, and grew, never occur in the first chapter; they are terms expressive of the produce of labour and cultivation; so that the historian evidently means that no cultivated land and no vegetables fit for the use of man were yet in existence on the earth" (Browne, 1981, 1:39, emp. in orig.).

Another view is that Genesis 2:5 does not refer to the condition of the Earth at large; rather, the writer simply is discussing the preparation of the beautiful garden in which man was to live (Young, p. 61). In any event, we must stress this point: whenever there is the possibility of legitimate reconciliation between passages that superficially appear to conflict, no contradiction can be charged!
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2194



The question also stems from the wrong assumption that the second chapter of Genesis is just a different account of creation to that in chapter 1. It should be evident that chapter 2 is not just ‘another' account of creation because chapter 2 says nothing about the creation of the heavens and the earth, the atmosphere, the seas, the land, the sun, the stars, the moon, the sea creatures, etc. Chapter 2 mentions only things directly relevant to the creation of Adam and Eve and their life in the garden God prepared specially for them. Chapter 1 may be understood as creation from God's perspective; it is ‘the big picture', an overview of the whole. Chapter 2 views the more important aspects from man's perspective.

Genesis 2:4 says, ‘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'. This marks a break with chapter 1. This phraseology next occurs in Genesis 5:1, where it reads ‘This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man'.

‘Generations' is a translation of the Hebrew word toledoth, which means ‘origin' or ‘record of the origin'. It identifies an account or record of events. The phrase was apparently used at the end of each section in Genesis2 identifying the patriarch (Adam, Noah, the sons of Noah, Shem, etc.) to whom it primarily referred, and possibly who was responsible for the record. There are 10 such divisions in Genesis.

Each record was probably originally a stone or clay tablet. There is no person identified with the account of the origin of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1–2:4), because it refers primarily to the origin of the whole universe, not any person in particular (Adam and Eve are not mentioned by name, for example). Also, only God knew the events of creation, so God had to reveal this, possibly to Adam who recorded it. Moses, as ‘author' of Genesis, acted as a compiler and editor of the various sections, adding explanatory notes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The toledoths acknowledge the sources of the historical records Moses used. This understanding underlines the historical nature of Genesis and its status as eyewitness history, contrary to the defunct ‘documentary (JEDP) hypothesis' still taught in many Bible colleges. [Ed. note: for a refutation of this fallacious and anti-Christian theory, see Did Moses really write Genesis?.]

The differences in the toledoth statements of Genesis 2:4 and 5:1 affirm that chapter 1 is the overview the record of the origin of the ‘heavens and earth' (2:4)â€â€

He "brought them to man." In your interpretation, then, man was already created by day 5. Isn't that the case?

The passage is clear that the animals were created in pursuit of a helper suitable for man:



Genesis 2 is clear that God had put man in the garden, instructed him, and observed that it was not good that he was alone. Then God made all the animals, which you interpret as occurring on day 5 and 6. Since the scripture is clear man was already present, then isn't it true your approach requires man to be in existence by day 5?

Or do you deny the order of events that Genesis 2 describes: man's creation and instructions, God observing he should not be alone, then the creation of the animals in search of a helper?



Let's look at the passage:


You appear in your interpretation to be rewording the order to have the lack of plants describe the period before creation, like this (I simply moved one italicized section into the order that I understand is your interpretation:
When no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; 6 but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground, In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.

This movement of the description of plants to match your interpretation has at least two inconsistencies:
1) it requres us to accept that a stream was watering the earth before the earth was created and
2) man is created on day one.

Could you comment on these thoughts?

_________________
Cobra (the car, not the poisonous reptile)
all scripture is NRSV unless otherwise noted

sorry cobra, it appears that you are either choosing to not address my interpretation or do not understand it, seems like the former to me, since you restate it as a "straw man" so that you can cut it down rather than deal with it, this being the case i would be wasting my time continuing this discussion, so i hope the best for you and may you have a blessed day.

brianpc, I addressed your answer:

with scripture from Genesis 2 that said this (the creation of animals) occurred after man had already been created, while you claim man was created after the animals clearly contradicting the literal reading of Genesis 2.

To hold your view requires a denial of the literal words of the scripture.

The same is true of your view on plants. I used the scripture itself to show that your view that the "time before plants" describes a time before the earth was created is inconsistent with the scripture. That your view contradicts the literal reading of Genesis 2 is evident by the statement that a stream would rise from the earth and water the ground. Since a stream was rising from the earth, the earth must have been already created.

Did you notice my posts are filled with scripture, and yours are not?

You appear to have decided to claim to accept the text as literal by explicitly denying what it says. As I wrote earlier, if we can't agree on the simple chronology in the passage and on a straightforward reading of the text, there is not a basis for discussion. The whole idea of denying what the text clearly says in order to hold to a personal interpretation is difficult for me to appreciate.

_________________
Cobra (the car, not the poisonous reptile)
all scripture is NRSV unless otherwise noted

Sorry about the picture sizes, I guess its impossible to shrink the universe down,

_________________
Kola,

Jeremiah 29:13 You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.

hehehehehe God's to big to shrink it down they were awesome pictures those my kids just said WOW

_________________
Jennifer Dent
Site Administrator

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The Net Bible Learning Environment
The Administrators Desk Blog

The answer to whether these are literal days is found in Ex. 20:11

btw -- the answer is "yes"

paco, the "days" in Genesis 1 or the "day" in Genesis 2. Which is literal?

_________________
Cobra (the car, not the poisonous reptile)
all scripture is NRSV unless otherwise noted

cobra -- "days" & "day" are found in both passages -- you seem to imply that this is an "apples & oranges" comparison which is untrue

imo both are literal but you are free to disagree

paco, in chapter 2:

it was a day when the God made the earth and the heavens.

And the plants were not there yet, and He made man on that day:

So we have the earth, heavens, and man created on a day.

In chapter 1:

and man was not created until day 6 as shown:


So, paco, is it your view that the "day" of Genesis 2:4, in which the earth and heavens and man were created, the same period of elapsed time as the beginning (of Genesis 1) until day 6 (of Genesis 1), making the "day" of Genesis 2 at least 6 days long?

_________________
Cobra (the car, not the poisonous reptile)
all scripture is NRSV unless otherwise noted

cobra -- your argument between Gen. 1 & 2 is a separate issue

Ex. 20 equates the days of Gen. 1 as literals 24-hr periods

the word for "day" has multiple meanings & the context of Gen. 2 is not the same as that of Gen. 1 -- Gen. 2:4 refers to the period of Creation IMO

paco, it sounds like you are in the "Genesis 1 should be taken literally and Genesis 2 should not" camp.

_________________
Cobra (the car, not the poisonous reptile)
all scripture is NRSV unless otherwise noted