Literally rendering of Genesis, Difficulties!

[random person]

If the creation days are literal, factual, and historical, does any one see the difficulty in the first day of Adam, he spent his very first 24 hours of existance naming all the beasts of the animal kingdom if that is even possible and then fell into a deep sleep before being presented Eve?

And in chapter 2 isn't the Garden and the beasts formed after Adam, yet, in chapter 1 they are formed before Adam?

 

[mindlight]

If the creation days are literal, factual, and historical, does any one see the difficulty in the first day of Adam, he spent his very first 24 hours of existance naming all the beasts of the animal kingdom if that is even possible and then fell into a deep sleep before being presented Eve?

And in chapter 2 isn't the Garden and the beasts formed after Adam, yet, in chapter 1 they are formed before Adam?

Seems to me you can answer this in one of 2 ways.

1) that Genesis 1-2 are some kind of poetical literary framework
2) that if indeed there were 6 literal historical days of creation you need to find a way of explaining the differences between the first and second creation accounts that does not involve poetical parallelism. That the first is a global perspective and the second a localised and personalised account for instance that do not contradict each other but rather complement each other.

I favour 2) because that seems to be Moses way of understanding it e.g Exodus 20 4th commandment. It was the way the Jews and church also interpreted the account. Also this is not written in a poetical genre and is the straight forward meaning of the account.

 

[classicalhero]

If you read chapter 2 you will see that God created this garden especially for man and brought the animals to Adam to see what he would name them. Nothing in CHapter 2 contradicts chapter 1.

 

[ChetSinger]

If the creation days are literal, factual, and historical, does any one see the difficulty in the first day of Adam, he spent his very first 24 hours of existance naming all the beasts of the animal kingdom if that is even possible and then fell into a deep sleep before being presented Eve?

Hello! My guess is that Adam didn't have to name 100 different kinds of finches, but a finch. And he didn't have to name 50 kinds of oxen, but an ox. The job then was smaller than it would be now.

And in chapter 2 isn't the Garden and the beasts formed after Adam, yet, in chapter 1 they are formed before Adam?

I see chapter 1 as a summary of the entire creation, and chapter 2 as a more detailed look at the 6th day. So I don't have a problem reconciling the two.

 

[Papias]

That the first is a global perspective and the second a localised and personalised account for instance that do not contradict each other but rather complement each other.

Except that it's not scriptural. There is nothing in there saying that one is a second account of the things that have already happened, and that's contradicted by the same events being described differently.

That's sufficient just by itself to reject the idea of it being a re-telling. Plus, scholars have agreed for a long time that they are two separate accounts based on several different clues, such as language, form, etc.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[random person]

I just believe fundamentalism and literalism is choking the ancient allegorical and metaphoric intentions of the original author.

He created men and women in chapter 1, He created Adam and Eve in chapter 2.

IIRC, Adam is a generic form for "The Human".

More issues I have toward fundamental literalism and YECers, is who did Cain fear in Gen. 4:14-15?

Adam and Eve? Unborn Seth?

And how did Cain find a wife in Gen. 4:17?

And how did Cain found and build a city? And why?

If we are to read this literally, there are three people on the whole earth immediately after Abel's death.

Adam, Eve, and Cain.

Yet, Cain is obviously fleeing from people and finds himself a wife and is the founding father of a city too.

The whole incest angle is not pretty. Cain marrying one of his sisters or one of his nieces.

 

[ChetSinger]

More issues I have toward fundamental literalism and YECers, is who did Cain fear in Gen. 4:14-15?

Adam and Eve? Unborn Seth?

And how did Cain find a wife in Gen. 4:17?

And how did Cain found and build a city? And why?

If we are to read this literally, there are three people on the whole earth immediately after Abel's death.

Adam, Eve, and Cain.

Yet, Cain is obviously fleeing from people and finds himself a wife and is the founding father of a city too.

Perhaps you're not familiar with YEC apologetics. All of this has been answered, at least to my satisfaction. There were 130 years between the creation of Adam and the birth of Seth. That leaves plenty of time for some of the "other sons and daughters" to have been born, grow up, and even have their own children. Sure, it was probably a tight-knit group; all the more reason for Cain to fear someone's revenge.

The whole incest angle is not pretty. Cain marrying one of his sisters or one of his nieces.

Abraham married a half-sister. Does that bother you?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

If the creation days are literal, factual, and historical, does any one see the difficulty in the first day of Adam, he spent his very first 24 hours of existance naming all the beasts of the animal kingdom if that is even possible

It's not possible, which means that the events in Eden were never intended to be taken so literally even by the author himself.

 

[classicalhero]

How do you know it isn't possible? It seems like people knew exactly how Adam did or didn't do what was written in the Bible.

Except that it's not scriptural. There is nothing in there saying that one is a second account of the things that have already happened, and that's contradicted by the same events being described differently.

That's sufficient just by itself to reject the idea of it being a re-telling. Plus, scholars have agreed for a long time that they are two separate accounts based on several different clues, such as language, form, etc.

In Christ-

Papias

Does Gensis 1 talk about a garden? If is doesn't then the account in Genesis 2 is an in depth account of what God did for man when he created him and his partner, Eve.

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

About this issue of Adam naming all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. My understanding is that 'livestock', in those days, may have consisted of a couple of dozen creatures. 'Birds of the air' may well have been several dozen or more. 'Beasts of the field' would also likely have been several dozen. It may be an incorrect understanding of mine and of the translation of 'beasts of the field', but I've always allowed that this didn't reference every living creature, but likely the larger animals.

The first thing that I understand and have to include in my understanding is that I wasn't there. The second issue that I have to consider in my understanding is that I don't know if every kind of bear - polar bear, brown bear, black bear, etc, was intended and existed on that day, or if the various sub-species of each 'kind' was represented on that day. Personally, I have always considered that, within a 'kind', some of the sub-species may have changed over time. However, again, I have to clearly state that I wasn't there and I don't know. But, if my understanding is correct, that God didn't parade millions of animals before Adam, but rather a couple of hundred that fit the bill of the description of the Scriptures, then I would imagine that within a couple of hours, as we account time, he could have given names to them. Of course, it wasn't like Adam had a job to go to or had other things to do on that day - he was after all alone in all of the earth at that time.

To support this issue of sub-species changes, I have only to look at the human race. If, as God's word and His Son's testimony claims, Adam and Eve were the first parents of all that now exist upon the earth, then over time, the human race has come to include the black person, the oriental person, the Latin person, the Germanic person, the European person and they each have various physical traits that identify them as belonging to a particular geographical area. Why these same nuances wouldn't also come into play within other 'kinds' seems elementary to me.

So, for me, I don't see this event as being a miles long parade of animals, but merely a couple of hundred. At the end of which God put Adam to sleep and made Eve and blessed them. Thus ended the 6th day.

Just as an example, let's consider that God made Adam at what we would consider daybreak of the 6th day and for the next 4-5 hours Adam is given the task of naming a few hundred animals. At the end of which God puts Adam to sleep and by late afternoon Eve is with him and God gives them His blessing to be one flesh and to populate the earth with their offspring. The 6th day comes to a close with Adam and Eve together and the beginning of this realm of God's creating complete. Job done and God rests.

God bless you all,
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

There is a basic difference in understanding that separates us.

Some say, "Well such and such is impossible because..."

I say, "Well, all things are possible that God says because He is God." To me, it seems perfectly possible that God started the sixth day by creating Adam and saying to him, "I'm going to bring to you several animals that you'll be interacting with and you can name them." This naming issue directly relates to man having dominion over them.

I certainly can't imagine that it took God more than a few moments to raise up from the dust of the earth this first man. I also don't imagine, just as in the days of Noah, that it would take God very long to bring the creatures that God wanted Adam to name, to him. It's very possible that just as the first man was placed in one spot on the earth, all these creatures may have also been local to the area and have since migrated to all points of the globe and over the course of a few thousand years experienced many of the changes which would adapt them to the place where they migrated to. But, I wasn't there and I know that all things are possible with God.

The best human example of this would be the black person. Several hundred, perhaps thousand, years ago the black skinned person was fairly unique to just the African continent. A person with oriental physical traits was pretty much unique to merely the Asian continent. What brought about these various geographically determined appearances, I have no idea. But I see the evidence today that it did happen and that if Adam and Eve were the first parents of all mankind, that it did stem from one parent pair. I have no problem attaching this same phenomenon to other living creatures.

Finally, as mentioned before, I don't think that God intends us to understand that Adam named every living creature, but merely the ones that He brings forth in the description. I don't understand the description to include things like snakes, rodents, many of the small furry creatures such as rabbits and squirrels, etc. But in all of this my basis for understanding is that 1, I wasn't there. 2, with God all things are possible.

This same basic difference in understanding and what we believe about God and who He is and what He can do, comes out in creation dating all the time. The one who trusts in man's scientific studies says that the creation must be 'x' old because we couldn't see the distant stars otherwise. Me, I wasn't there and I know that with God all things are possible because He is God. If in God's purpose in creating this realm He brought forth all the stars of the universe to be signs for times and seasons and to example to us the glory, majesty and power of who He is, then He would want man to be able to see them. So, however we might conjure that He physically made it possible for us to see stars billions of light years away is anyone's guess, but I know that I wasn't there and with God all things are possible. Surely no one can deny that what we see and know of the universe today, if we believe that God just spoke it to be and it was as visible to Adam as it is to us today, it sure is a great example of the glory of God.

We can look to the smallest part of matter that we know today and certainly marvel at how it all works, but from the beginning, the heavens have always been the greatest and most visible evidence of the glory of God. In Abraham's day no one had a clue of all that made up matter upon the earth, but they could see the heavens. In Paul's day man still had a very elementary understanding of all that made up the matter upon the earth, but absolutely every person that had ever lived up until his day could see the heavens declaring the glory of God. Today, with pictures from the Hubble telescope, the heavens are still declaring to us the glory of God.

There is nothing else that any writer of the Scriptures, concerning all the created things that God has made, ever claims to display to man the glory of God, but the heavens. It seems from the Scriptures, that the creation of the heavens is the only thing we are given to be a sign throughout all the generations of the earth, of God's great glory. If that was an important part of God's creating them, then He would want that testimony to be as visible to Adam and his generations as it is to us today.

God bless you all.
In Christ, Ted

 

[random person]

Perhaps you're not familiar with YEC apologetics. All of this has been answered, at least to my satisfaction. There were 130 years between the creation of Adam and the birth of Seth. That leaves plenty of time for some of the "other sons and daughters" to have been born, grow up, and even have their own children. Sure, it was probably a tight-knit group; all the more reason for Cain to fear someone's revenge.


Abraham married a half-sister. Does that bother you?

Where does the text say there was any children born between Cain and Seth? And the text does not state what age was Adam when Abel and Cain were born either.

Tight-knit group, right?

 

[mindlight]

Except that it's not scriptural. There is nothing in there saying that one is a second account of the things that have already happened, and that's contradicted by the same events being described differently.

That's sufficient just by itself to reject the idea of it being a re-telling. Plus, scholars have agreed for a long time that they are two separate accounts based on several different clues, such as language, form, etc.

In Christ-

Papias

The literary framework theory is so full of holes that if you wore it as clothing you'd be sued for public exposure. But I have argued that in the Genesis 1-11 OP.

The basic difference is not a literary one but rather a witness one. Adam could not have known the events of Genesis 1 but had first hand knowledge of the events of late Genesis 2 and beyond. So God told Him what happened in the first bit and in the second he described his own experience. In simple terms people forget Adam spoke with God face to face about the origin of the universe of himself and of the woman. His account was passed down orally and later in a written form to the subsequent generations.

 

[mindlight]

Where does the text say there was any children born between Cain and Seth? And the text does not state what age was Adam when Abel and Cain were born either.

Tight-knit group, right?

The bible is silent on this. My own view is that when God created man on the 6th day he did so over the whole earth. The gender differentiation we see in Genesis 2 was repeated across the earth. The difference between Adam and Eve and the rest was their location in Eden and their close relationship with God. They had an advantage over the rest of humanity because of that. When they were driven from Eden there were other dumber humans to interact with. But salvation history is reckoned through Adam from whom comes Noah and Shem for instance. So Adam is the first man and Eve the first woman but outside Eden they were not alone.

 

[random person]

The bible is silent on this. My own view is that when God created man on the 6th day he did so over the whole earth. The gender differentiation we see in Genesis 2 was repeated across the earth. The difference between Adam and Eve and the rest was their location in Eden and their close relationship with God. They had an advantage over the rest of humanity because of that. When they were driven from Eden there were other dumber humans to interact with. But salvation history is reckoned through Adam from whom comes Noah and Shem for instance. So Adam is the first man and Eve the first woman but outside Eden they were not alone.

Interesting, because "Adam" in Hebrew also means the "human race".

I agree, in part to alot of what you have stated, I am not a YEC and I am beginning to be more and more convinced that Adam and Eve weren't called forth just to chill with God in a garden, but that they were God's chosen priests.

It fits too. Because like the Last Adam, the First Adam was also priest administering over sacred ground possibly a temple where God dwelt and fellowshipped. These details are somewhat obscured but allusions are definitely there in the text.