Theisitic Evolution

[Hoghead1]

Bob, Gen. 2 gives a very definite sequence of events, hence, a chronology.

 

[BobRyan]

a list of events without a timeline - no time frame at all in Gen 2 and so not a chronology. It is stated 'in context: - the context already given -- the context of the 7 day creation week already given.

It expands on the Gen 1:2-2:3 details already given just a Gen 1:2-2:3 expands on the Gen 1:1 statement.

you are 'working for the goal of contradiction" where none is present because these are not two different time-boxed sequential chronologies. There is only 1.

 

[Hoghead1]

That doesn't work at all, Bob. There is, as I said, a very definite sequence or timeline of events in Gen. 2. Hence, Eve is created, based on god seeking teh animals don't work as companions and not until then.

 

[stevevw]

What "expert scholars" have you been reading, Stevewv? If you are using online apologetic sources, I would strongly urge you to look elsewhere if you are interested in sources truly scholarly and expert. I also don't know where you are getting this notion of two women at once. I think you should go back and carefully reread what I said about Lilith. I also don't understand where you are getting the notion that 5the idea of two stories is based on "one word." I never said anything like that. Again, I would encourage you to read more carefully what I had to say.

The expert are scholars who have degrees or the equivalent qualifications having studied the bible and specialize in understanding it. They have extensive knowledge of the old testament and its language, culture and history and understand how to interpret the bible. They also understand how the original writers intended the story to be told as they understand the style of how the Hebrews wrote the bible. This includes the Hebrew bible which is closest to the original writings.

The fact is whether you refer to apologetic sites, christian sites, traditional Jewish sites, academic references or any other site that inquires about the Genesis story they are all in agreeing. I can name dozens of sites that have experts who all agree that there is not two different stories in the bible. The two creation stories in Genesis are of the same event. Here is a good statement from one that sums up the situation. I bet you will find very few that disagree and say there is and of them they will be associated with some anti religious interest.

Order of Creation: Animals and Man
It is argued that Genesis 1 represents animals as existing before man (24-26), yet Genesis 2 has Adam created before the animals are formed (19). The Hebrew text of 2:19 merely suggests that the animals were formed before being brought to man; it says nothing about the relative origins of man and beast in terms of chronology. The critic is reading something into the text that simply isn’t there.

The following summary statement by Professor Kenneth Kitchen of the University of Liverpool is worthy of notice:

“It is often claimed that Genesis 1 and 2 contain two different creation-narratives. In point of fact, however, the strictly complementary nature of the ‘two’ accounts is plain enough: Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the centre of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. There is no incompatible duplication here at all. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism” (pp. 116-117).
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/162-critical-theory-attacks-genesis-1-and-2

Challenge 2: When Did God Create Animals?
Other skeptics say, “Look, these two creation accounts are still two, very different—in fact, contradictory—-stories.” The second challenge I think Julie heard is that God created animals before man in chapter 1, but that He created animals after man in the chapter 2.

Here’s what Genesis 2:19-20 records (NASB):

[19] Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

[20] The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.

It doesn’t seem like the writer had any kind of chronological intent here. Verse 19 is just a literary summary of what God already made in chapter one. Kind of interesting how the fact that verse 19 doesn’t mention cattle supports this idea. How?

The late Umberto Cassuto, who was a Professor of Bible at Hebrew University of Jerusalem explained this exact thing in his work, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis:

In vs. 19 only the beasts of the field and the flying creatures of the air are referred to, and no mention whatsoever is made of the cattle…If the term beasts had been used here, or beasts of the earth, one might have assumed that it included cattle as well; but the expression beasts of the field is actually an antonym of cattle…

in v. 20, the first category of creatures to be named by man is precisely the cattle…the cattle were already to be found with man in the garden of Eden, and there was no need to create them and bring them before him (129).

“If “beast of the fields” is the total opposite of “cattle” in the Hebrew mindset, then the whole “When did God make the animals?” challenge pretty much goes away.” No contradiction with Genesis 1. God made the animals before he made Adam. No problem.

No Contradiction
So it turns out there’s not two different, contradictory creation stories. There’s no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2 after all. Both chapters agree that God created animals before Adam and God made Adam before Eve. Unless you’re looking for ways to make something look like a contradiction, there’s no reason to force a chronological intent on a passage when there just isn’t one there.
http://www.apologeticsguy.com/2013/11/two-different-creation-stories-genesis-1-2/

These are just two sites. there are many more who all agree with the above conclusions.

 

[BobRyan]

That doesn't work at all, Bob. There is, as I said, a very definite sequence or timeline of events in Gen. 2.

you have quoted yourself on that point - but not once did you give the Bible timeline of Genesis 2:4-end. Was it a billion years? A million? Ten? 1 year? If so - where did you get that "In the text"??

We all know there is no timeline at all given in chapter 2 after it completes the reference to the 7th day of chapter 1's time-boxed sequence.

 

[BobRyan]

Gen 2

No farming -- at the time Adam as formed
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Garden of Eden - still no farming
8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

Gardening is the work of man - not farming.
15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Family for man - begins with appreciating the need for someone of his own kind - his own species.
18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Marriage - Family -
21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
=========================

Timeline - how long did it take for 'the trees to grow' -- the text does not say. But in Genesis 1 it comes about in a 24 hour period of time - a single rotation of the planet.

 

[Hoghead1]

Sorry, Stevevw, none of those arguments really work. OK, Kitchen is well-noted as a critic of teh DH, true. However, most contemporary biblical scholars follow the DH. I have a list of at least 150. Secondly, Kitchen explains nothing, whi9ch is why most scholars follow the notion of two conflicting accounts. The animals in 2 could be referred back to 1 if the pluperfect tense were used here. But Hebrew has no pluperfect tense. I explained about that before. Also, the position in the text definitely does reveal a time sequence. In Gen. 2, animals are created after man, after God sees it isn't good for him to be alone. The text is talking here about a cause-and-effect or before-and-after relationship.

 

[Hoghead1]

Well, Bob, may be you think there is no sequence of events given in 2, but many of the rest of us defiantly do. Since you erroneously believe they were written by the same author, then each event in 2 should take a day. And that is another problem, as 2 rearranges the days, so that first Adam, then animals (next day), then woman (day after).

 

[stevevw]

Sorry, Stevevw, none of those arguments really work. OK, Kitchen is well-noted as a critic of teh DH, true. However, most contemporary biblical scholars follow the DH. I have a list of at least 150. Secondly, Kitchen explains nothing, whi9ch is why most scholars follow the notion of two conflicting accounts. The animals in 2 could be referred back to 1 if the pluperfect tense were used here. But Hebrew has no pluperfect tense. I explained about that before. Also, the position in the text definitely does reveal a time sequence. In Gen. 2, animals are created after man, after God sees it isn't good for him to be alone. The text is talking here about a cause-and-effect or before-and-after relationship.

You keep referring back to this one support of a past tense or not that is going to make all the difference. I have shown with my last post that there is a lot of other support surround that one verse that point to it not being about the creation of the animals. Yet you just insist that it is without showing how with any solid support. Its not just the use or non use of a pluperfect. We are talking about the context of one verse or a few words in among many verses which support a consistent reading. So much relies on this small section to build a case for the two conflicting Genesis stories.

If the animals in Genesis 2 are made before Adam then everything is consistent and we have no problem. We dont have to change or conflict any other parts of the bible to accommodate that reading. But if we read a conflicting version then this makes other parts of the bible in conflict and out of sync. Nothing else in the story supports the idea that the animals were made before Adam. The verse about the animals is merely saying that the animals were made and not when they were made. You have to use some assumption to say that the verse is saying the animals were made before Adam. In fact if you use the rest of what is said it mostly points to the animals already being created in Genesis 2. When they are mentioned only certain ones are mentioned.

The verse in Genesis 2 doesn't mention the Birds, sea life, wild beast and crawling things. If it is an account of when the animals were being created why have all these animals been left out. You could make a case that God only created certain animals if you want to be literal like you say. But because certain animals are left out it shows that it isn't speaking about when the animals were made but it is talking about Adam naming certain animals that he may have some association with such as the animals of the fields like cows.

So because this small section carries so much weight and because the rest seems consistent I think reading a conflicting idea into it is out of context. Lastly in my search for support or lack of support for your assertion I have never seen as much support as you claim. A simple search of the most common sites through Google reveal that 9 out of the 10 sites support the idea of a consistency between Genesis 1 and 2. Maybe you may be able to find a few more but I would say you would have to do some pretty detailed searching to find them. I would also say that most of them will be associated with non scholar experts and fringe sites who like to bag the bible.

 

[Hoghead1]

Sorry, Stevevw, that still doesn't work. Let's say, for giggles sake , that you are right, that Gen. 2 doesn't give any chronology. Then we would still have trouble fitting it with Gen. 1, which does in fact give a definite chronology. It's irrational to claim that there is no chronology, but it really represents the sequence of events talked about in Gen.1.
Next, Gen. 2 does give a stated chronology. First, man, then God sees it isn't good for man to be alone, and then the animals are created. You cannot refer this creation of animals back into one, since there is no pluperfect tense used here. Also, the text states "all the animals," not just some. Even if, for giggles sake, you assumed cattle already existed, you would still have trouble harmonizing this text with Gen. 1, as Gen. 1 says the cattle, plus all the other wild animals were crated; it does not say that just cattle were created.
Next, sources. I have no idea where you are getting this "fringe" idea from. Most apologetic sources I have found online were creation-science based and managed by persons not well educated in either science or Scripture. I can assume you that mainstream biblical scholarship would favor the DH. One of my colleagues, Richard Friedman, professor and author of "Who Wrote the Bible," sent me a list of about 150 major scholars who hold with the DH. On my end of it, I have a doctorate in theology and am listed in "Who's Who in Biblical Studies and Archaeology." I don't wish to brag, just to correct a major misconception you have here.

 

[BobRyan]

That doesn't work at all, Bob. There is, as I said, a very definite sequence or timeline of events in Gen. 2.

you have quoted yourself on that point - but not once did you give the Bible timeline of Genesis 2:4-end. Was it a billion years? A million? Ten? 1 year? If so - where did you get that "In the text"??

We all know there is no timeline at all given in chapter 2 after it completes the reference to the 7th day of chapter 1's time-boxed sequence.

Well, Bob, may be you think there is no sequence of events given in 2, but many of the rest of us defiantly do. Since you erroneously believe they were written by the same author, then each event in 2 should take a day. And that is another problem, as 2 rearranges the days, so that first Adam, then animals (next day), then woman (day after).

In Gen 1-2:3 we are told about the unit of time -- a day -- one rotation of earth - one sequence of evening and morning.

In Gen 2:4-end there is no unit of time given at all - this is obvious -- irrefutable.

Your entire effort to re-imagine contradiction into the text - is for the sole purpose of arguing for an "untrustworthy text" as being all we have for a Bible. (Though presumably there is some sentence in the book that you would accept as accurate).

I have pointed out that your efforts to wrench a time-boxed sequential chronology out of Gen 2:4-end utterly fails the details in the text. Your argument resorts to the idea that - if there is any sequence at all given in Gen 2 - then it must be intended as a contradiction to chapter 1.

That is a bit more eisegetical "insert" than the objective unbiased reader will be ready to swallow.

 

[BobRyan]

Sorry, Stevevw, that still doesn't work. Let's say, for giggles sake , that you are right, that Gen. 2 doesn't give any chronology. Then we would still have trouble fitting it with Gen. 1, which does in fact give a definite chronology.

I find your logic "illusive" just then.

For example a statement "Genesis 1-2:3 describes the creation of life on earth" is not a chronological statement in itself - but that fact cannot be wrenched into "so then it is a contradiction".

Obviously.

Gen 2 does not give any time frame at all for the events it describes.

not once did you give the Bible timeline of Genesis 2:4-end. Was it a billion years? A million? Ten? 1 year? If so - where did you get that "In the text"?? how long does Gen 2 say it took for the plants to grow??

We all know there is no timeline at all given in chapter 2 after it completes the reference to the 7th day of chapter 1's time-boxed sequence.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Hoghead1]

Although Genesis 2 does not specify exact lengths of time, it does clearly specify a clear sequence of events. The author of Gen. 2 is telling a story, not presenting events in a random order; and the temporal order specified in 2 stands in stark contradiction to Gen. 1. Specifying lengths of time has noting to do with this, is not the issue.

 

[BobRyan]

Although Genesis 2 does not specify exact lengths of time, it does clearly specify a clear sequence of events. The author of Gen. 2 is telling a story, not presenting events in a random order; .

Gen 2 "add details" not found at all in Gen 1

1. The names of the man and the woman.
2. The fact that it did not rain before the fall of man (or before the flood most likely)
3. The institution of Marriage
4. the 7th day blessed and santified.
5. The rule about the tree of knowledge
6. The significance of the tree of life.
7. The fact that Adam named animals of the field (farm) prior to Eve being created.
8. The creation of Eden in one specific part of the Earth.

It gives NO timeline at all for these events. Much less a "competing timeline" to Gen 1:2-2:3.

This is irrefutable.

 

[-57]

Can you give me an example of this so I can see what you mean.

If evolutionism is true then Romans 5:12 is wrong:
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned

If evolutionism is true then1 Cor 15:21 is wrong:
For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.

 

[-57]

How do you see the chronology of Adam to Jesus. It mentions a line of great prophets and men going down through the ages and give their ages. We are suppose to be able to trace the time line here. Some say that there maybe periods missing as it only mentions certain men that are relevant to to holy line. But even so I dont think its a long period of time. Certainly not in the millions or even 100s of thousands of years. Could it be that this was the point in time where God created man into his image in the spiritual sense.

The linage looks like this:

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

Heli, Matthat, Levi, Melki, Jannai, Joseph, Mattathias, Amos, Nahum, Esli, Naggai, Maath, Mattathias, Semein, Josech, Joda, Joanan, Rhesa, Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, Neri,Melki, Addi, Cosam, Elmadam, Er,Joshua, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi,Simeon, Judah, Joseph, Jonam, Eliakim, Melea, Menna, Mattatha, Nathan, David, Jesse, Obed, Boaz, Salmon, Nahshon, Amminadab, Ram, Hezron, Perez, Judah,Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Terah, Nahor,Serug, Reu, Peleg, Eber, Shelah, Cainan, Arphaxad, Shem, Noah, Lamech,Methuselah, Enoch, Jared, Mahalalel, Kenan, Enosh, Seth, Adam, God.

Luke 3:23 Mary’s linage

 

[-57]

Sorry, Stevevw, but that doesn't work for Gen. 2., for reasons I pointed out. Stated simply, in Gen. 1, first animals, then man and woman together; in Gen. 2, first man alone, then animals, then a woman. Also, as I pointed out, Lilith entered the picture because you have to account for two women if you assume Gen. 1 and 2 are one unified account.

Gen 1:27 tells us ....So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Notice there were no details of how God made woman in Gen 1. But the bible does clear things up in the next chapter with its focus on how women were made:

21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

 

[-57]

What "expert scholars" have you been reading, Stevewv? If you are using online apologetic sources, I would strongly urge you to look elsewhere if you are interested in sources truly scholarly and expert. I also don't know where you are getting this notion of two women at once. I think you should go back and carefully reread what I said about Lilith. I also don't understand where you are getting the notion that 5the idea of two stories is based on "one word." I never said anything like that. Again, I would encourage you to read more carefully what I had to say.

Hoghead, can you provide the name of just one christian denomination that believes in the two women scenario?

 

[Aman777]

The linage looks like this:

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

Heli, Matthat, Levi, Melki, Jannai, Joseph, Mattathias, Amos, Nahum, Esli, Naggai, Maath, Mattathias, Semein, Josech, Joda, Joanan, Rhesa, Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, Neri,Melki, Addi, Cosam, Elmadam, Er,Joshua, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi,Simeon, Judah, Joseph, Jonam, Eliakim, Melea, Menna, Mattatha, Nathan, David, Jesse, Obed, Boaz, Salmon, Nahshon, Amminadab, Ram, Hezron, Perez, Judah,Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Terah, Nahor,Serug, Reu, Peleg, Eber, Shelah, Cainan, Arphaxad, Shem, Noah, Lamech,Methuselah, Enoch, Jared, Mahalalel, Kenan, Enosh, Seth, Adam, God.

Luke 3:23 Mary’s linage

Amen. Notice the name "Heli":

Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed ) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

It's Mary's father, Joseph's father in Law. Like my son in Law, he tells everyone he's my son and I call him son. Joseph was the son in Law of Heli. Here is Joseph's real father:

Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

God's Truth is the Truth in every way. It's because the Holy Spirit moved the men who penned the words He breathed to them, in God's Holy Word.

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

[-57]

Amen. Notice the name "Heli":

Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed ) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

It's Mary's father, Joseph's father in Law. Like my son in Law, he tells everyone he's my son and I call him son. Joseph was the son in Law of Heli. Here is Joseph's real father:

Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

God's Truth is the Truth in every way. It's because the Holy Spirit moved the men who penned the words He breathed to them, in God's Holy Word.

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The bible presents two linages. One is Mary's and the other is Joseph.