theological problem with the "sons of god" being human

[IvinViljoen]

In the rendition of Sodom and Gomorrah angels appeared as men. They were referred to, many times as sons of God.

However, we are all sons of God through Christ.

 

[Assyrian]

Dear Assyrian, I have NEVER claimed Adam was "created" on the 3rd Day. Adam was "formed", which is Hebrew comes from a word which shows he was molded or shaped as a Potter molds the clay. Adam was formed by the Hands of Jesus, called Lord God in Genesis 2;4-7.

I thought you agreed that God created everything? If the Lord God formed Adam from mud that is creating him too. Create, form and make are simply different ways to describe the same thing. Did God create birds Gen 1:21 or did he form them Gen 2:19?

Hebrews called Him YHWH, and His name is a Singular Name, unlike the Hebrew name for God, which is Elohim, the Trinity, a Plural Name.

I agree there are verses that describe Jesus as YHWH, Isaiah 40:3 A voice cries: "In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God. But notice how Isaiah parallels the LORD, YHWH, with God, elohim? You cannot divide up the Trinity on the basis of elohim being plural and YHWH being singular. There may be a hint to the Trinity in elohim being plural, but it is no more than a hint, and there is no reason why God who is one should not have a name that is singular. Look at how the Psalmist prophesies that Jesus will pray to YHWH. Psalm 22:18 they divide my garments among LORD among them, and for my clothing they cast lots. 19 But you, O LORD, do not be far off! O you my help, come quickly to my aid! Or look at Isaiah great prophesy about the messiah. Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned--every one--to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. How about Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand. Notice how Isaiah call YHWH Father? Here is God the Father described as a potter forming us from clay which you think is refer to Jesus in Genesis 2 when it describes YHWH forming Adam from clay as a potter.

Here are the verses which show that the first man was formed on the 3rd Day.

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God (YHWH/Jesus) made the earth and the heavens,

The Earth was made the 3rd Day according to Genesis 1:9-10

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.

Plants GREW on the 3rd Day. Genesis 1:12

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.

If you don't agree, then tell us what other Day these verses are speaking of. Also show us where God (Elohim) created Adam.

Was a lack of rain the reason there were no plants on day three in Genesis 1? Doesn't the day start off with the earth under water? How can a shortage of rain explain plants not growing? And when God separated waters from the land did a lack of rain explain why plants didn't spring up immediately? Or was the reason that plants hadn't been created yet and even if they did exist they wouldn't spring up in a couple of hours after the water pours off the land?

You have two different descriptions of the creation in Genesis 1 and 2 which literalists have to try to reconcile. You try to line up the creation of Adam in Genesis 2 with day 3 in Genesis, other creationists try to line it up with day six, when Genesis 1 actually says God created Adam. In neither case does scripture tell us to line up the two creation accounts that way, it is simply a human attempt at reconciling two very different accounts of the creation. There are of course problems with the standard creationist approach, the animals are out of order and they have to try to find a way to explain the plants being created after Adam, but these are minor points compared with the way you ripe the whole thrust, the beauty, poetry and emphasis of Genesis 1 apart to try to get it to fit Genesis 2.

Personally I don't think Genesis 2 is meant to be lined up with Genesis 1 or that there is a need to identify the 'days' in Genesis 2. Neither story is meant as literal history. The fact you cannot line the two account up without doing violence to at least one of the creation accounts is itself evidence they are not meant to be read literally. Of course the description of God as a potter forming people from clay is one of the great metaphors we see throughout the bible.

Assyrian:>>Neither do Genesis 1 or 2 say anything about Adam being born again.

Remember that YHWH/Jesus, the Singular name of God formed Adam on the 3rd Day. Genesis 1:27 is NOT speaking of YHWH/Jesus, but instead, is speaking of God (Elohim-the Trinity). The account in Genesis 1:27 agrees exactly with the further explanation of WHEN this event happened, and is shown in Genesis 5:1-2:

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God (Elohim, the Trinity) created man, in the likeness of God made He him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Adam was formed the 3rd Day and Eve was NOT formed until the 6th Day. Genesis 2:22, and yet BOTH were "created in God's Image" at the SAME time on the 6th Day. This is further explained in the New Testament.

Again there is nothing there about Adam being born again.

l Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is Spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is Spiritual.

Like ALL men, Adam was first formed physically, and afterward Spiritually. Both Adam and Eve were "created in God's Image" or born Spiritually, on the 6th Day. That was NOT first which is Spiritual.

In Love,
Aman

You realise when Paul talks about 'the last Adam' he is referring to Christ? Rebirth and resurrection life come through Jesus Christ not Adam. You realise there is no reference to humans even having a spirit in Genesis until the flood, and there is it the spirit or breath we share with all living things. Gen 6:17 For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life (or: a living spirit) under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die. Gen 7:15 They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life. Gen 7:2 Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died.

 

[Joshua0]

Did God create birds Gen 1:21 or did he form them Gen 2:19?

There are two different Hebrew words used. Gen 1 is a reference to the whole world. Gen 2 is a reference to the birds that were find created 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Dear Assyrian, I have NEVER claimed Adam was "created" on the 3rd Day. Adam was "formed", which is Hebrew comes from a word which shows he was molded or shaped as a Potter molds the clay. Adam was formed by the Hands of Jesus, called Lord God in Genesis 2;4-7.
​

Assyrian:>>I thought you agreed that God created everything?

Dear Assyrian, I do, but everyone is NOT "created in God's Image" or in Christ. ie. Satan

Assyrian:>>If the Lord God formed Adam from mud that is creating him too. Create, form and make are simply different ways to describe the same thing. Did God create birds Gen 1:21 or did he form them Gen 2:19?

The creatures made from the land were formed physically. It takes the agreement of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to "create." The fowl of the air were "created" and brought forth from the water after "HIS" kind. The His being after the manner in which Jesus forms them on the 6th Day. This is another example of God seeing the future 6th Day formation of the birds BEFORE it takes place.

Aman:>>Hebrews called Him YHWH, and His name is a Singular Name, unlike the Hebrew name for God, which is Elohim, the Trinity, a Plural Name.

Assyrian:>>I agree there are verses that describe Jesus as YHWH, Isaiah 40:3 A voice cries: "In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God. But notice how Isaiah parallels the LORD, YHWH, with God, elohim? You cannot divide up the Trinity on the basis of elohim being plural and YHWH being singular. There may be a hint to the Trinity in elohim being plural, but it is no more than a hint, and there is no reason why God who is one should not have a name that is singular. Look at how the Psalmist prophesies that Jesus will pray to YHWH. Psalm 22:18 they divide my garments among LORD among them, and for my clothing they cast lots. 19 But you, O LORD, do not be far off! O you my help, come quickly to my aid! Or look at Isaiah great prophesy about the messiah. Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned--every one--to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. How about Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand. Notice how Isaiah call YHWH Father? Here is God the Father described as a potter forming us from clay which you think is refer to Jesus in Genesis 2 when it describes YHWH forming Adam from clay as a potter.

Here is another example. Mar 12:36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on My right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Here David is speaking of the Father speaking to the Son, and using the SAME word for each of them. ONLY by STUDY and the help of the Holy Spirit can a believer rightly divide the Word of Truth. This is not the usual manner of speaking for Lord God is YHWH in the Old and God is Elohim, according to the KJV translators.

Aman:>>Here are the verses which show that the first man was formed on the 3rd Day.

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God (YHWH/Jesus) made the earth and the heavens,

The Earth was made the 3rd Day according to Genesis 1:9-10

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.

Plants GREW on the 3rd Day. Genesis 1:12 The first rain is when the Flood began, thus the next verse:

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.

In the Garden, there was no rain. The water came out of the ground and became 4 Rivers. Genesis 2 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)

If you don't agree, then tell us what other Day these verses are speaking of. Also show us where God (Elohim) created Adam.
​

Assyrian:>>Was a lack of rain the reason there were no plants on day three in Genesis 1?

No, since the earth "brought forth" plants on the 3rd day:

Gen. 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after His kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after His kind: and God saw that it was good.

Assyrian:>>Doesn't the day start off with the earth under water?

No, since the dry land was separated from the water:

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth;

Assyrian:>>How can a shortage of rain explain plants not growing?

No, since the earth brought forth grass, herbs, and trees on the 3rd Day.

Assyrian:>>And when God separated waters from the land did a lack of rain explain why plants didn't spring up immediately? Or was the reason that plants hadn't been created yet and even if they did exist they wouldn't spring up in a couple of hours after the water pours off the land?

Genesis 2:8 shows that the LORD made the trees AFTER He made Adam.

Assyrian:>>You have two different descriptions of the creation in Genesis 1 and 2 which literalists have to try to reconcile.

Not so. That would mean that God contradicts Himself, which is impossible. Genesis 1 is the complete History of God's Creation of the 3rd Heaven, with it's streets of Gold and Gates of Pearl. It is an outline of God's 6 Creative Days or Ages, and ALL of the rest of Scripture refers BACK to this outline. At Genesis 2:4, we are taken BACK to the events of the 3rd Day and additional information is added to the outline of Genesis 1. ie. the formation of Adam.

The narrative continues and adds details to Adam's life in the Garden and we are brought forth to the present 6th Creative Day when Jesus makes Eve on the 6th Day. Genesis 2:22 Adam sins and is cast from the Garden. Cain kills Abel. Then Adam and Eve are born Spiritually, Eternally, on the present 6th Day. Genesis 1:27 AND Genesis 5:1-2

The narrative stops at Genesis 1:27 for God is STILL creating Adam (mankind) in His Image or in Christ, Today. Genesis 1:28-31 is PROPHECY of future events which will not take place until the end of the present 6th Day.

Genesis 2:1 continues the PROPHECY of when God finishes ALL of His work and ALL the host of heaven is present in the 3rd Heaven. Genesis 2:2-3 REPEAT the fact that God rests from ALL of His work on the future 7th Day. Today, God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are STILL working to fill the 3rd Heaven with New creatures born Eternally, in Christ, showing that we are STILL at Genesis 1:27.

Assyrian:>>You try to line up the creation of Adam in Genesis 2 with day 3 in Genesis, other creationists try to line it up with day six, when Genesis 1 actually says God created Adam. In neither case does scripture tell us to line up the two creation accounts that way, it is simply a human attempt at reconciling two very different accounts of the creation. There are of course problems with the standard creationist approach, the animals are out of order and they have to try to find a way to explain the plants being created after Adam, but these are minor points compared with the way you ripe the whole thrust, the beauty, poetry and emphasis of Genesis 1 apart to try to get it to fit Genesis 2.

A "plain reading" of the two chapters is the problem. You MUST study the details in order to come to a true understanding. When you do, you will see that Genesis Chapter 1 could ONLY have been authored by God Himself, since NO man could have possibly written of our future, thousands of years ago.

The bonus is that one discovers that God's Holy Word agrees in EVERY way with EVERY discovery of Science and History. God's Truth MUST agree with the discoveries and observations of mankind or we have not found God's Truth. Anything less is a half truth.

Assyrian:>>Personally I don't think Genesis 2 is meant to be lined up with Genesis 1 or that there is a need to identify the 'days' in Genesis 2. Neither story is meant as literal history. The fact you cannot line the two account up without doing violence to at least one of the creation accounts is itself evidence they are not meant to be read literally. Of course the description of God as a potter forming people from clay is one of the great metaphors we see throughout the bible.

Amen. The word "formed" as used in Genesis 1:7 to describes the formation of Adam, from dust of the ground comes from a Hebrew word, which is defined as shaping the dust as a Potter molds the clay.

Assyrian:>>Neither do Genesis 1 or 2 say anything about Adam being born again.

Aman:>"Remember that YHWH/Jesus, the Singular name of God formed Adam on the 3rd Day. Genesis 1:27 is NOT speaking of YHWH/Jesus, but instead, is speaking of God (Elohim-the Trinity). The account in Genesis 1:27 agrees exactly with the further explanation of WHEN this event happened, and is shown in Genesis 5:1-2:

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God (Elohim, the Trinity) created man, in the likeness of God made He him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Adam was formed the 3rd Day and Eve was NOT formed until the 6th Day. Genesis 2:22, and yet BOTH were "created in God's Image" at the SAME time on the 6th Day. This is further explained in the New Testament.
​

Assyrian:>>Again there is nothing there about Adam being born again.

It agrees with Genesis 1:27 and again "adds" details to the account contained in the OUTLINE of Genesis 1. This is true throughout the Bible. It also agrees with the verses below:

l Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is Spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is Spiritual.

Like ALL men, Adam was first formed physically, and afterward Spiritually. Both Adam and Eve were "created in God's Image" or born Spiritually, on the 6th Day. That was NOT first which is Spiritual.

Assyrian:>>You realise when Paul talks about 'the last Adam' he is referring to Christ?

That is the traditional, religous, view, and NOT what the verses actually say. I know the next verse says that the second Adam is the Lord from heaven. Notice that the verses are speaking of those who have already been born Spiritually, and continues to tell us we MUST put on immortality at the last trump and thus become like Christ.

This is clear when you read the entire passage which is speaking of being like Christ.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

1Cr 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

Assyrian:>>Rebirth and resurrection life come through Jesus Christ not Adam. You realise there is no reference to humans even having a spirit in Genesis until the flood, and there is it the spirit or breath we share with all living things. Gen 6:17 For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life (or: a living spirit) under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die. Gen 7:15 They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life. Gen 7:2 Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died.

I agree and the definition of a soul (Heb=living being) is one who breathes. All flesh breathes, but NOT all flesh is "created in God's Image" or in Christ. The first Adam was made a breathing soul and the last Adam was made a quickening Spirit, like Christ, IMHO. God bless you and yours.

In Love,
Aman
​

 

[Aman777]

Ivin:>>In the rendition of Sodom and Gomorrah angels appeared as men. They were referred to, many times as sons of God.

Dear Ivin, Not in the KJV. You must be reading from a paraphrased version of Scripture. The term "sons of God" is referred to ONLY 5 times, in the Old Testament:

Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Ivin:>>However, we are all sons of God through Christ.

I agree that ALL those who have been born of His Spirit are now the sons of God. We are called the sons of God 6 times in the New Testament.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Calminian]

In the rendition of Sodom and Gomorrah angels appeared as men. They were referred to, many times as sons of God.

However, we are all sons of God through Christ.

Exactly. Sons of God in the sense of individuals is a references to heavenly beings in the old testament.

And yes, Christ is the begotten Son of God, and those in Him are called sons of God.

Seems to me, therefore, those individuals spoken of in Gen. 6 must fall into one of those two camps. Either they are angels, or they somehow were in Christ Jesus before he became Christ Jesus.

 

[Aman777]

Calminian:>>Seems to me, therefore, those individuals spoken of in Gen. 6 must fall into one of those two camps. Either they are angels, or they somehow were in Christ Jesus before he became Christ Jesus.

Dear Cal, The sons of God in Genesis 4 were NOT in Christ. They were inncoent, which means they didn't have enough sense to know good and evil. IOW, they didn't break God's Laws because they were NOT intelligent enough to know good from evil, thus will not be Judged, as humans are.

ALL animals, whose origin was in the water on the 5th Day, are innocent. They are NOT human because they did NOT descend from Adam, and that is the ONLY way you can inherit human intelligence. ONLY the descendants of Adam have human intelligence with the Ability to know both good and evil.

SOME humans are dead in their trespasses and sins. Only those who are in Christ, in God's Image, born again of God's Spirit, are alive to God. God considers those who have been born of His Spirit to be innocent of breaking God's Law, BECAUSE they are forgiven of their sins, and therefore, considered innocent, because of the finished work of Jesus. Jesus died, was buied and arose third day, accoring to the Scriptures, to PAY for their sins so that the Father would see them as innocent of their sins.

The sons of God in the Old Testament were considered innocent because they did not know good and evil..
The sons of God in the New Testament are considered innocent because they have put their Faith in Jesus, instead of themselves, and been born Spiritually, in Christ, by the agreement of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Jesus said:

John 14:15 If ye love Me, keep My commandments.
16 And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

The humans who do NOT put their faith in Jesus are lost, since they are NOT born of His Spirit:

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.

That's WHY Jesus said, You MUST be born again to inherit the kingdom of God. Humans who have been born again are innocent of breaking God's Law, thanks to the finished work of Jesus Christ. Jesus is LORD.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Assyrian]

Dear Assyrian, I do, but everyone is NOT "created in God's Image" or in Christ. ie. Satan

That is a different argument, and it doesn't help you with my point that Genesis 2 doesn't say Adam was created on the third day.

The creatures made from the land were formed physically. It takes the agreement of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to "create." The fowl of the air were "created" and brought forth from the water after "HIS" kind. The His being after the manner in which Jesus forms them on the 6th Day. This is another example of God seeing the future 6th Day formation of the birds BEFORE it takes place.

You aren't answering my question. You tried to distinguish between create and form, I showed you how both word are used to describe God making birds. Genesis 1 says God created them and Genesis 2 says he formed them. Are you still claiming the two words mean completely different things?

Incidentally it say winged fowl after 'his' kind in the AV because oph, fowl or bird, is a masculine noun. Since 'his' refers to fowl it would probably be an idea to stop capitalising it

Here is another example. Mar 12:36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on My right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Here David is speaking of the Father speaking to the Son, and using the SAME word for each of them. ONLY by STUDY and the help of the Holy Spirit can a believer rightly divide the Word of Truth. This is not the usual manner of speaking for Lord God is YHWH in the Old and God is Elohim, according to the KJV translators.

It is the same word Lord in the Greek Septuagint, however it is a quotation from Psalm 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool." In the Hebrew the word LORD used for the Father is Yahweh while the word Lord used for the Messiah is Adonai. It is also worth pointing out that where our English translations say LORD God, such as in Genesis 2, the Hebrew is actually Yahweh Elohim.

No, since the earth "brought forth" plants on the 3rd day:

Gen. 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after His kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after His kind: and God saw that it was good.

You have just shown that day three in Genesis 1 does not match the arid wilderness described before Adam was created in Genesis 2

Doesn't the day start off with the earth under water?

No, since the dry land was separated from the water:

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth;

Why do say 'No' and then agree with me? Again you show how the third day in Genesis 1 doesn't match Genesis 2

How can a shortage of rain explain plants not growing?

No, since the earth brought forth grass, herbs, and trees on the 3rd Day.

So again, your attempt to line up the creation of Adam in Genesis 2 with the third day in Genesis 1 fails since the explanation for the lack of plants in Genesis 2 simply doesn't fit the third day in Genesis 1.

And when God separated waters from the land did a lack of rain explain why plants didn't spring up immediately? Or was the reason that plants hadn't been created yet and even if they did exist they wouldn't spring up in a couple of hours after the water pours off the land?

Genesis 2:8 shows that the LORD made the trees AFTER He made Adam.

You are not addressing my question.

You have two different descriptions of the creation in Genesis 1 and 2 which literalists have to try to reconcile.

Not so. That would mean that God contradicts Himself, which is impossible.

'Not So'? You mean literalists don't try to reconcile the two accounts?

Genesis 1 is the complete History of God's Creation of the 3rd Heaven, with it's streets of Gold and Gates of Pearl. It is an outline of God's 6 Creative Days or Ages, and ALL of the rest of Scripture refers BACK to this outline. At Genesis 2:4, we are taken BACK to the events of the 3rd Day and additional information is added to the outline of Genesis 1. ie. the formation of Adam.

The narrative continues and adds details to Adam's life in the Garden and we are brought forth to the present 6th Creative Day when Jesus makes Eve on the 6th Day. Genesis 2:22 Adam sins and is cast from the Garden. Cain kills Abel. Then Adam and Eve are born Spiritually, Eternally, on the present 6th Day. Genesis 1:27 AND Genesis 5:1-2

The narrative stops at Genesis 1:27 for God is STILL creating Adam (mankind) in His Image or in Christ, Today. Genesis 1:28-31 is PROPHECY of future events which will not take place until the end of the present 6th Day.

Genesis 2:1 continues the PROPHECY of when God finishes ALL of His work and ALL the host of heaven is present in the 3rd Heaven. Genesis 2:2-3 REPEAT the fact that God rests from ALL of His work on the future 7th Day. Today, God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are STILL working to fill the 3rd Heaven with New creatures born Eternally, in Christ, showing that we are STILL at Genesis 1:27.

I have just shown you the description of the barren wilderness before God formed Adam in Genesis 2 doesn't fit the description of the third day in Genesis 1.

A "plain reading" of the two chapters is the problem. You MUST study the details in order to come to a true understanding. When you do, you will see that Genesis Chapter 1 could ONLY have been authored by God Himself, since NO man could have possibly written of our future, thousands of years ago.

If your study ends up doing violence to the plain meaning of the text there is something wrong with your study. I am not denying God inspired Genesis 1, that doesn't mean it has to be read literally. God often speaks to us in his word through parable, poetry, metaphor and symbol. Much better a figurative interpretation that flows out of the plain meaning of the text than a supposedly literal interpretation that tears the plain reading apart.

The bonus is that one discovers that God's Holy Word agrees in EVERY way with EVERY discovery of Science and History. God's Truth MUST agree with the discoveries and observations of mankind or we have not found God's Truth. Anything less is a half truth.

Agreed that is why I have no problem with the age of the earth and the evolution of life including the human race.

Amen. The word "formed" as used in Genesis 1:7 to describes the formation of Adam, from dust of the ground comes from a Hebrew word, which is defined as shaping the dust as a Potter molds the clay.

So you have no problem with God using normal biological processes to form Adam the way the potter metaphor describes God making us too, even though our creation involved normal biological processes too?

Neither do Genesis 1 or 2 say anything about Adam being born again.

Aman:>"Remember that YHWH/Jesus, the Singular name of God formed Adam on the 3rd Day. Genesis 1:27 is NOT speaking of YHWH/Jesus, but instead, is speaking of God (Elohim-the Trinity). The account in Genesis 1:27 agrees exactly with the further explanation of WHEN this event happened, and is shown in Genesis 5:1-2:

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God (Elohim, the Trinity) created man, in the likeness of God made He him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Adam was formed the 3rd Day and Eve was NOT formed until the 6th Day. Genesis 2:22, and yet BOTH were "created in God's Image" at the SAME time on the 6th Day. This is further explained in the New Testament.
​

What is the point in quoting verses that don't support your claim Adam was born again???

Again there is nothing there about Adam being born again.

It agrees with Genesis 1:27 and again "adds" details to the account contained in the OUTLINE of Genesis 1. This is true throughout the Bible. It also agrees with the verses below:

If you can't point out where Genesis say Adam was born again, you are the one adding details to Genesis.

You realise when Paul talks about 'the last Adam' he is referring to Christ?

That is the traditional, religous, view, and NOT what the verses actually say. I know the next verse says that the second Adam is the Lord from heaven. Notice that the verses are speaking of those who have already been born Spiritually, and continues to tell us we MUST put on immortality at the last trump and thus become like Christ.

First you say that is the traditional view, then you confirm it that Paul was talking about Christ.

This is clear when you read the entire passage which is speaking of being like Christ.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

1Cr 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

The fact Paul was showing how we must put on immortality doesn't change the fact that the second Adam means Christ. If spiritual rebirth come from Christ, then there is nothing in the passage to say the first Adam was born again, in fact the passage shows us the opposite, that being born again is through the second Adam, Christ, when he became man and died and rose again, not through 'the man of dust' the first Adam.

I agree and the definition of a soul (Heb=living being) is one who breathes. All flesh breathes, but NOT all flesh is "created in God's Image" or in Christ. The first Adam was made a breathing soul and the last Adam was made a quickening Spirit, like Christ, IMHO. God bless you and yours.

But if Genesis never even mentions Adam having a spirit it leaves you with nothing in Genesis to indicate Adam was born again spiritually.

If you want to see the Genesis 2 equivalent of Genesis 1 description, man being created in God's image, then the place to look for that is God breathing into Adam's nostrils in Gen 2:7. Each chapter is saying God put something of himself, of his nature, into us when he created us. Just as the two accounts use different term to describe God making us, creating in Genesis 1 and forming us as a potter in Genesis 2, it uses different description to describe making us in some way like him.

 

[Assyrian]

There are two different Hebrew words used. Gen 1 is a reference to the whole world. Gen 2 is a reference to the birds that were find created 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden.

Hi Joshua.
Both chapters use the Hebrew oph, fowl or bird, both even use oph shamayim, bird of the air.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Dear Assyrian, I do, but everyone is NOT "created in God's Image" or in Christ. ie. Satan
​

Assyrian:>>That is a different argument, and it doesn't help you with my point that Genesis 2 doesn't say Adam was created on the third day.

Dear Assyrian, Adam was formed on the 3rd Day (Gen. 2:4-7) and was born again on the 6th Day at the SAME time Eve was born Spiritually. (Gen:1:27 and Gen. 5:1-2) Eve was built from Adam's tissue, on the 6th Day. (Gen. 2:22) Adam was NOT created on the 3rd day, He was made or shaped and contained a higher intelligence level than ANY other living creature, except Jesus.

Aman:>>The creatures made from the land were formed physically. It takes the agreement of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to "create." The fowl of the air were "created" and brought forth from the water after "HIS" kind. The His being after the manner in which Jesus forms them on the 6th Day. This is another example of God seeing the future 6th Day formation of the birds BEFORE it takes place.
​

Assyrian:>>You aren't answering my question. You tried to distinguish between create and form, I showed you how both word are used to describe God making birds. Genesis 1 says God created them and Genesis 2 says he formed them. Are you still claiming the two words mean completely different things?

Yes. The birds, like Adam, were shaped by the hands of Jesus (YHWH) on the 6th Day from the dust of the ground. When God created the birds from the water, on the 5th Day, ELOHIM, by the agreement of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the birds were created to be sexually compatible, identical, to "His kind", the Lord God's kind, YHWH's kind, Jesus' kind, which were not made of the dust until the NEXT Day. God sees the end from the beginning. Isaiah 46 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)


Assyrian:>>Incidentally it say winged fowl after 'his' kind in the AV because oph, fowl or bird, is a masculine noun. Since 'his' refers to fowl it would probably be an idea to stop capitalising it

Aman:>>Here is another example. Mar 12:36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on My right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Here David is speaking of the Father speaking to the Son, and using the SAME word for each of them. ONLY by STUDY and the help of the Holy Spirit can a believer rightly divide the Word of Truth. This is not the usual manner of speaking for Lord God is YHWH in the Old and God is Elohim, according to the KJV translators.
​

It is the same word Lord in the Greek Septuagint, however it is a quotation from Psalm 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool." In the Hebrew the word LORD used for the Father is Yahweh while the word Lord used for the Messiah is Adonai. It is also worth pointing out that where our English translations say LORD God, such as in Genesis 2, the Hebrew is actually Yahweh Elohim.

Aman:>>No, since the earth "brought forth" plants on the 3rd day:

Gen. 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after His kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after His kind: and God saw that it was good.
​

Assyrian:>>You have just shown that day three in Genesis 1 does not match the arid wilderness described before Adam was created in Genesis 2

Since the plants were not made for the Garden until AFTER Adam was made, he would have been made in an arid wilderness void of plants. Genesis 2:8

Assyrian:>>Doesn't the day start off with the earth under water?
​

Aman:>>No, since the dry land was separated from the water:

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth;
​

Why do say 'No' and then agree with me? Again you show how the third day in Genesis 1 doesn't match Genesis 2

Genesis 2 is telling us that man was formed of the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day AFTER the Earth was made, but BEFORE the plants. Genesis 2:8 shows that the plants were made AFTER man was made in total AGREEMENT with the events of the 3rd Day as shown in Genesis 1:9-12 in which the Earth was made and then the plants. Genesis 2 is explaining that between the earth being made and the plants appearing, the LORD made man.

Assyrian:>>How can a shortage of rain explain plants not growing?
​

Aman:>>No, since the earth brought forth grass, herbs, and trees on the 3rd Day.
​

Assyrian:>>So again, your attempt to line up the creation of Adam in Genesis 2 with the third day in Genesis 1 fails since the explanation for the lack of plants in Genesis 2 simply doesn't fit the third day in Genesis 1.

Genesis 1 is in the Outline of ALL of the rest of Scripture. Genesis 2:4-7 is referring BACK to the SAME 3rd Day, and adding the information that on the 3rd Day, After the earth is made, but Before the plants grew, the Lord formed man. The agreement is total. Both accounts are the same.

Assyrian:>>And when God separated waters from the land did a lack of rain explain why plants didn't spring up immediately? Or was the reason that plants hadn't been created yet and even if they did exist they wouldn't spring up in a couple of hours after the water pours off the land?

Genesis 2:8 shows that the LORD made the trees AFTER He made Adam.
​

Assyrian:>>You are not addressing my question.

Genesis 2:8 and Genesis 1:12 agree. BOTH say that the plants grew on the 3rd day. Genesis 2:8 is adding the information that it was AFTER Adam was made when the plants were placed in the Garden.

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.

Plants were made AFTER man was formed of the dust of the ground.

Assyrian:>>You have two different descriptions of the creation in Genesis 1 and 2 which literalists have to try to reconcile.
​

Aman:>>Not so. That would mean that God contradicts Himself, which is impossible.
​

Assyrian:>>'Not So'? You mean literalists don't try to reconcile the two accounts?


They tell the SAME story the prescientific theologians believed. By mixing the traditional thinking of early man with a "plain" reading, they cannot reconcile what is written with the Truth which has been documented by Science and History.

Continued ..........

 

[Aman777]

Aman:>>Genesis 1 is the complete History of God's Creation of the 3rd Heaven, with it's streets of Gold and Gates of Pearl. It is an outline of God's 6 Creative Days or Ages, and ALL of the rest of Scripture refers BACK to this outline. At Genesis 2:4, we are taken BACK to the events of the 3rd Day and additional information is added to the outline of Genesis 1. ie. the formation of Adam.

The narrative continues and adds details to Adam's life in the Garden and we are brought forth to the present 6th Creative Day when Jesus makes Eve on the 6th Day. Genesis 2:22 Adam sins and is cast from the Garden. Cain kills Abel. Then Adam and Eve are born Spiritually, Eternally, on the present 6th Day. Genesis 1:27 AND Genesis 5:1-2

The narrative stops at Genesis 1:27 for God is STILL creating Adam (mankind) in His Image or in Christ, Today. Genesis 1:28-31 is PROPHECY of future events which will not take place until the end of the present 6th Day.

Genesis 2:1 continues the PROPHECY of when God finishes ALL of His work and ALL the host of heaven is present in the 3rd Heaven. Genesis 2:2-3 REPEAT the fact that God rests from ALL of His work on the future 7th Day. Today, God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are STILL working to fill the 3rd Heaven with New creatures born Eternally, in Christ, showing that we are STILL at Genesis 1:27.
​

Assyrian:>>I have just shown you the description of the barren wilderness before God formed Adam in Genesis 2 doesn't fit the description of the third day in Genesis 1.

I suppose it depends on what you would call a landscape devoid of plants, which were NOT made until AFTER man was formed of the dust. Your confusion is obvious.

Aman:>>A "plain reading" of the two chapters is the problem. You MUST study the details in order to come to a true understanding. When you do, you will see that Genesis Chapter 1 could ONLY have been authored by God Himself, since NO man could have possibly written of our future, thousands of years ago.
​

Assyrian:>>If your study ends up doing violence to the plain meaning of the text there is something wrong with your study. I am not denying God inspired Genesis 1, that doesn't mean it has to be read literally. God often speaks to us in his word through parable, poetry, metaphor and symbol. Much better a figurative interpretation that flows out of the plain meaning of the text than a supposedly literal interpretation that tears the plain reading apart.

Proverbs 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

This verse shows that God has concealed His Truth from unbelievers. I have posted that people who have NOT been born Spiritually see Scripture as "foolishness" and cannot understand it. Now, you tell me that if an unbeliever cannot understand the plain reading, then something is wrong. I agree. It is your insistance that a "plain" reading is the only way to understand Scripture, I will tell you that God says something else. You cannot make Scripture agree by showing two contradicting stories in the first two chapters of the Bible authored by the Holy Spirit.

Aman:>>The bonus is that one discovers that God's Holy Word agrees in EVERY way with EVERY discovery of Science and History. God's Truth MUST agree with the discoveries and observations of mankind or we have not found God's Truth. Anything less is a half truth.
​

Assyrian:>>Agreed that is why I have no problem with the age of the earth and the evolution of life including the human race.

The problem is that the human race did not evolve from other creatures. Adam was made before ANY other creature making it impossible for him to have evolved. ALL humans are the descendants of Adam. On our Planet, it was through Noah's grandsons, who like Cain, had NO other humans to marry. They married and produced today's humans with the sons of God (Prehistoric people) on both worlds. Gen. 6:4

Aman:>>Amen. The word "formed" as used in Genesis 1:7 to describes the formation of Adam, from dust of the ground comes from a Hebrew word, which is defined as shaping the dust as a Potter molds the clay.
​

Assyrian:>>So you have no problem with God using normal biological processes to form Adam the way the potter metaphor describes God making us too, even though our creation involved normal biological processes too?

We evolved or changed from the sons of God into humans when prehistoric people married and produced children with the descendants of Adam, the first Human. We have an intelligence which is like God's, which only humans have. Genesis 3:22

Assyrian:>>Neither do Genesis 1 or 2 say anything about Adam being born again.
​

Aman:>"Remember that YHWH/Jesus, the Singular name of God formed Adam on the 3rd Day. Genesis 1:27 is NOT speaking of YHWH/Jesus, but instead, is speaking of God (Elohim-the Trinity). The account in Genesis 1:27 agrees exactly with the further explanation of WHEN this event happened, and is shown in Genesis 5:1-2:

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God (Elohim, the Trinity) created man, in the likeness of God made He him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Adam was formed the 3rd Day and Eve was NOT formed until the 6th Day. Genesis 2:22, and yet BOTH were "created in God's Image" at the SAME time on the 6th Day. This is further explained in the New Testament.
​

Assyrian:>>What is the point in quoting verses that don't support your claim Adam was born again???

Since Adam was "formed" from the dust on the 3rd Day, explain what it means by saying Adam was "created in God's Image" on the 6th Day. The New Testament tells us that the living was FIRST, and then LATER became Spiritual. Remember that you said Jesus was the second Adam. Try to make sense of that, since Jesus is second to NOTHING. Jesus is God, the Alpha the beginning and the Omega, the ending.

Tradition says the second Adam was Jesus, but that understanding contradicts the Scriptural fact that Jesus is not second at anything. Since Jesus was also NOT the last man, explain your traitional view Scripturally...IF you can.

Assyrian:>>Again there is nothing there about Adam being born again.

Have YOU been born again? of the Spirit of God?

Aman:>>It agrees with Genesis 1:27 and again "adds" details to the account contained in the OUTLINE of Genesis 1. This is true throughout the Bible. It also agrees with the verses below:

Assyrian:>>If you can't point out where Genesis say Adam was born again, you are the one adding details to Genesis.

You are saying that God should have written Genesis with the words you prefer. I keep telling you that a "plain reading" would allow ANY unbeliever to understand, and Scripture tells us they CANNOT, but you keep asking for Scripture to use the words "born again" instead of saying "created in God's Image." That is WHY I asked you IF you had been born again.

Assyrian:>>You realise when Paul talks about 'the last Adam' he is referring to Christ?

Aman:>>That is the traditional, religous, view, and NOT what the verses actually say. I know the next verse says that the second Adam is the Lord from heaven. Notice that the verses are speaking of those who have already been born Spiritually, and continues to tell us we MUST put on immortality at the last trump and thus become like Christ.
​

Assyrian:>>First you say that is the traditional view, then you confirm it that Paul was talking about Christ.

Only if you stop at my first words. Did you read that Scripture is referring to becoming like the LORD from heaven. That is not my view, but the view of J. Vernon McGee who does the complete anaylsis which has been accepted for decades.

Aman:>>This is clear when you read the entire passage which is speaking of being like Christ.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

1Cr 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
​

Assyrian:>>The fact Paul was showing how we must put on immortality doesn't change the fact that the second Adam means Christ. If spiritual rebirth come from Christ, then there is nothing in the passage to say the first Adam was born again, in fact the passage shows us the opposite, that being born again is through the second Adam, Christ, when he became man and died and rose again, not through 'the man of dust' the first Adam.

I'm sorry that you don't understand. J. Vernon McGee has already gone on to be with Jesus, so I guess you will have to discuss it with him when you see him in heaven.

Aman:>>I agree and the definition of a soul (Heb=living being) is one who breathes. All flesh breathes, but NOT all flesh is "created in God's Image" or in Christ. The first Adam was made a breathing soul and the last Adam was made a quickening Spirit, like Christ, IMHO. God bless you and yours.
​

Assyrian:>>But if Genesis never even mentions Adam having a spirit it leaves you with nothing in Genesis to indicate Adam was born again spiritually.

Then YOU must believe that NO one, not Abel, Adam, Moses, Isaiah, David, and Everyone in the Old Testament will go to Hell and not Heaven because the verse don't say the words you want them to say. Right?

Assyrian:>>If you want to see the Genesis 2 equivalent of Genesis 1 description, man being created in God's image, then the place to look for that is God breathing into Adam's nostrils in Gen 2:7. Each chapter is saying God put something of himself, of his nature, into us when he created us. Just as the two accounts use different term to describe God making us, creating in Genesis 1 and forming us as a potter in Genesis 2, it uses different description to describe making us in some way like him.

The Christians here now understand WHY I have asked you several times IF you have been born again. Unless you have, everything I say will be Foolishness to you for Jesus said: John 10:27
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me:

In Love,
Aman

 

[Assyrian]

That is a different argument, and it doesn't help you with my point that Genesis 2 doesn't say Adam was created on the third day.

Dear Assyrian, Adam was formed on the 3rd Day (Gen. 2:4-7) and was born again on the 6th Day at the SAME time Eve was born Spiritually. (Gen:1:27 and Gen. 5:1-2) Eve was built from Adam's tissue, on the 6th Day. (Gen. 2:22) Adam was NOT created on the 3rd day, He was made or shaped and contained a higher intelligence level than ANY other living creature, except Jesus.

Please try to stick to the point instead of running off on other issues. You already agree God created everything, so if he formed Adam from dust that is creating Adam, whether you think it wasn't in God's image or not, it is still creating Adam. That is according to the description of creation you agreed with in post 78.

Can you address my point that Genesis 2 doesn't say Adam was created (or formed) on the third day?

Yes. The birds, like Adam, were shaped by the hands of Jesus (YHWH) on the 6th Day from the dust of the ground. When God created the birds from the water, on the 5th Day, ELOHIM, by the agreement of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the birds were created to be sexually compatible, identical, to "His kind", the Lord God's kind, YHWH's kind, Jesus' kind, which were not made of the dust until the NEXT Day. God sees the end from the beginning. Isaiah 46 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)

How were birds supposed to reproduce, Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." if God hadn't given them bodies? How can Genesis 1 even describe these birds being created if they hadn't been made yet?

Or if you are reading Genesis 1 as a prophecy of what God was going to create, why pick and choose which parts are prophetic? You claim Adam was really formed on day three, when God really made all the plants, but day five switches to prophetic and God didn't really make the birds then, that was going to be day six. There are coherent interpretations of Genesis 1 that say day seven is prophetic, it is the only day without an evening and morning. There is another interpretation, Days of Proclamation, which say all of Genesis 1 is prophetic and took place in eternity, God proclaiming what he was going to create, before the work of creation ever too place. But your interpretation jumps in an out of prophetic to rearrange Genesis 1 in whatever way suits you.

Here is another example. Mar 12:36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on My right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Here David is speaking of the Father speaking to the Son, and using the SAME word for each of them. ONLY by STUDY and the help of the Holy Spirit can a believer rightly divide the Word of Truth. This is not the usual manner of speaking for Lord God is YHWH in the Old and God is Elohim, according to the KJV translators.

Yes I understand you capitalise 'His' in 'according to his kind' because you think is refers to Christ. I have just shown you 'his' refers to the singular masculine noun oph, bird. In Gen 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, oph is in the plural, 'their kind' not 'Their kind'. Heron and stork are feminine nouns, that is why it says in Lev 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind. It is her kind not 'Her kind'. If you capitalise 'His' kind, you are ascribing divinity to birds.

It is the same word Lord in the Greek Septuagint, however it is a quotation from Psalm 110:1 A Psalm of David. The L[FONT=&quot]ORD[/FONT] says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool." In the Hebrew the word L[FONT=&quot]ORD[/FONT] used for the Father is Yahweh while the word Lord used for the Messiah is Adonai. It is also worth pointing out that where our English translations say L[FONT=&quot]ORD[/FONT] God, such as in Genesis 2, the Hebrew is actually Yahweh Elohim.

Aman:>>No, since the earth "brought forth" plants on the 3rd day:
Gen. 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after His kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after His kind: and God saw that it was good.

What has this got to do with Yahweh referring to the Father in Psalm 110 or Genesis 2 talking about Yahweh Elohim.

Since the plants were not made for the Garden until AFTER Adam was made, he would have been made in an arid wilderness void of plants. Genesis 2:8

It is the reason it was a wilderness is the issue. Can you get back to my question in post 82:

Was a lack of rain the reason there were no plants on day three in Genesis 1?
​

Genesis 2 is telling us that man was formed of the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day AFTER the Earth was made, but BEFORE the plants. Genesis 2:8 shows that the plants were made AFTER man was made in total AGREEMENT with the events of the 3rd Day as shown in Genesis 1:9-12 in which the Earth was made and then the plants. Genesis 2 is explaining that between the earth being made and the plants appearing, the LORD made man.

Sigh. Did Day 3 start off with with the earth under water or not? It is a very simple question. If the earth wasn't under water, why did God say Gen 1:9 Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear?

Genesis 1 is in the Outline of ALL of the rest of Scripture. Genesis 2:4-7 is referring BACK to the SAME 3rd Day, and adding the information that on the 3rd Day, After the earth is made, but Before the plants grew, the Lord formed man. The agreement is total. Both accounts are the same.

Whether you think Genesis 1 outlines all of scripture or not, Genesis 2:5-7 does not describe Day 3 in Genesis 1. The only similarity is the lack of plants. Genesis 2 has an arid wilderness, Day 3 starts off with the earth underwater. You would need every last drop of water to be removed from the ground when God separated the waters from the land, which is conceivable, but it is not a reason plants could not grow. If the earth was saturated in the morning, and had been saturated since its creation, and was only dry in the afternoon, a lack of rain is not the reason for there being no plants. If a lack of rain is the reason there are no plants it means there were plants to grow, and time for them to grow if there had been rain. The reason there were no plants on Day 3 is simply because God had not created them yet. Genesis 1 describes God creating from a watery chaos. In Genesis 2 creation is from a wilderness, a barren and dry chaos. In Genesis 2 plants, would have grown if there had been rain and a man to till the ground.

You are not addressing my question.

Genesis 2:8 and Genesis 1:12 agree. BOTH say that the plants grew on the 3rd day. Genesis 2:8 is adding the information that it was AFTER Adam was made when the plants were placed in the Garden.
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.

Plants were made AFTER man was formed of the dust of the ground.

You are still not addressing my question. Here it is again.

And when God separated waters from the land did a lack of rain explain why plants didn't spring up immediately?
​

They tell the SAME story the prescientific theologians believed. By mixing the traditional thinking of early man with a "plain" reading, they cannot reconcile what is written with the Truth which has been documented by Science and History.

They describe the same creation in very different ways. Which leaves literalists like you and other creationists trying to find ways to reconcile your literal interpretations. Genesis two doesn't say anything about it taking place on the third day. That is your way of trying to reconcile the two stories, and you choose this method because Genesis 2 describes God creating plants. Other creationist try to reconcile the two accounts by saying Genesis 2 takes place on Day 6, after all Genesis 2 describes God making Adam which happens on Day in Genesis 1. But again just as Genesis 2 doesn't say it happens on Day three, it doesn't say it happens on Day six either. Both you and other creationists take two very different descriptions of God's creation and try to reconcile them.

To be continued...

 

[Assyrian]

Continued...

I suppose it depends on what you would call a landscape devoid of plants, which were NOT made until AFTER man was formed of the dust. Your confusion is obvious.

It isn’t about the what we call a dry rainless land without plant life, though barren wilderness seems a pretty reasonable. The issue is that the description in Genesis 2 of the land Adam was formed in is completely different from what we see on Day 3 in genesis 1.

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.
This verse shows that God has concealed His Truth from unbelievers. I have posted that people who have NOT been born Spiritually see Scripture as "foolishness" and cannot understand it. Now, you tell me that if an unbeliever cannot understand the plain reading, then something is wrong. I agree. It is your insistance that a "plain" reading is the only way to understand Scripture, I will tell you that God says something else.

No I am saying the deeper meaning revealed by the Spirit of God will not do violence to the plain menacing of the text. Just because your reading is different from the plain meaning of the text doesn’t mean it is revealed to you by God. Your cut and paste rearrangement of the two accounts to try to make them fit is not the deeper meaning of the text, it is simply another human effort to make the two texts agree.

You cannot make Scripture agree by showing two contradicting stories in the first two chapters of the Bible authored by the Holy Spirit.

The fact that the two accounts contradict when they are read literally only means they are not meant to be read literally. Of course once you realise they are not meant to be read literally, then there is no contradiction between them, they both describe God’s work of creation sometimes describing the same spiritual truth in different picture in other areas pointing out deep truth not touched on in the other account.

The problem is that the human race did not evolve from other creatures.

It thought you said “God's Holy Word agrees in EVERY way with EVERY discovery of Science and History.”

Adam was made before ANY other creature making it impossible for him to have evolved.

Sorry the text doesn’t say that. The very fact you and other creationists have to rearrange the order of the creation accounts to make them fit tells us the accounts aren’t about what was made first. We have looked at the very common biblical metaphor of God as a potter making each of us from clay, if you and I can be formed from clay by God the potter yet still have a mother and father, grandfathers and grandmothers, then God forming Adam from clay doesn’t mean he was made before any other creature either.

ALL humans are the descendants of Adam. On our Planet, it was through Noah's grandsons, who like Cain, had NO other humans to marry. They married and produced today's humans with the sons of God (Prehistoric people) on both worlds. Gen. 6:4

The potter metaphor means that not only could Adam’s children marry prehistoric people, Adam could be descended from them too. The potter metaphor says God made him, it doesn’t mean God didn’t use parents to do it.

We evolved or changed from the sons of God into humans when prehistoric people married and produced children with the descendants of Adam, the first Human. We have an intelligence which is like God's, which only humans have. Genesis 3:22

Genesis 3:22 doesn’t actually say any of that. Other animal are intelligent, just not as intelligent as humans. There is no reason God couldn’t have used evolution to give humans the intelligence we have with this being the biological process God used to make us, while Genesis describe God’s workmanship with the potter metaphor.

Since Adam was "formed" from the dust on the 3rd Day, explain what it means by saying Adam was "created in God's Image" on the 6th Day. The New Testament tells us that the living was FIRST, and then LATER became Spiritual. Remember that you said Jesus was the second Adam. Try to make sense of that, since Jesus is second to NOTHING. Jesus is God, the Alpha the beginning and the Omega, the ending.
Tradition says the second Adam was Jesus, but that understanding contradicts the Scriptural fact that Jesus is not second at anything.

Sorry I don’t accept your premise that Adam was formed on the 3rd Day. Jesus is before all things existing from all eternity in God, however he was born after Adam. Jesus pointed out out the incongruity that David was the Messiah’s forefather, and children should honour and obey their parents, yet David called his descendant ‘Lord’. You can no more make rules that Jesus cannot be the second Adam than you can say Jesus couldn’t be David’s descendant. Jesus being the second Adam, that spiritual birth supercedes the flesh, is seen again and again in scripture. Cain the first born was not the one accepted by God, it was Abel. It wasn’t Ishmael who was the child of promise it was Abraham’s second son Isaac. Esau was first born but Jacob was the one God chose. Saul was the first king of Israel but God rejected him and anointed David the second king, a man after God’s heart.

Since Jesus was also NOT the last man, explain your traitional view Scripturally...IF you can.

Checking 1Cor 15:45-47 Paul calls Christ ‘last Adam’ and ‘the second man’. If you want to understand second Adam, look at the first time Paul talks about Adam in the chapter, 1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
The whole human race is either in Adam and dead in their sins, or in Christ, spiritually alive and destine to the resurrection in him. In Paul's apocalyptic symbolism, the whole human race is summed up in these two men, the first Adam and the last Adam Christ, the first man and the second man. The problem for your interpretation is the second man, who if you want to take Paul literally, was Cain (or since anthropos can be male or female, Eve).

1Cor 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven…
49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
Was Adam from heaven or was was it Jesus who came from heaven? Are we being conformed to the image of Adam or of Christ?

Have YOU been born again? of the Spirit of God?

Yes and yes. Of course rebirth was a promise that would come with the New Covenant Ezekiel 36:26 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.
27 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
28 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. Where does the bible say Adam was born again?

You are saying that God should have written Genesis with the words you prefer. I keep telling you that a "plain reading" would allow ANY unbeliever to understand, and Scripture tells us they CANNOT, but you keep asking for Scripture to use the words "born again" instead of saying "created in God's Image." That is WHY I asked you IF you had been born again.

I have shown you that God’s image isn’t all or nothing. When we are born again we are transformed from glory to glory, further and further into God’s image, but if being born again transforms us further into God’s image, then people who aren’t born again can also be in God’s image because that is how God created mankind. I have shown you how God’s image is applied to all of mankind. We see it in Romans 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them. Gentiles who know nothing of God’s law, still have God’s law written on their hearts guiding their actions, though not always. They do may not know God or his law and are not born again but buy their actions or even by their conscience condemning other acts show they still bear the image of the Creator.

Only if you stop at my first words.

It was your next sentence I was commenting on.
“I know the next verse says that the second Adam is the Lord from heaven.” If you know the second Adam is the Lord from heaven, how can you claim the second Adam isn’t Christ?

Did you read that Scripture is referring to becoming like the LORD from heaven. That is not my view, but the view of J. Vernon McGee who does the complete anaylsis which has been accepted for decades.

More than just a few decades, that is what the church has always believed. Now I am not saying you can’t challenge tradition, but you need a better basis than the one you have. Of course Paul is telling us in the passage that we are to become like Christ, the man from heaven, that doesn’t change the fact that Paul is describing Christ as the second man the last Adam, the man from heaven. We were born of flesh bearing the image of the first Adam are we are to be transformed into the image of the heavenly man, Christ.

I'm sorry that you don't understand. J. Vernon McGee has already gone on to be with Jesus, so I guess you will have to discuss it with him when you see him in heaven.

I suggest you take it up with him, I suspect you are missing the point he was making. What I have been discussing with you is your claim Adam was born again, you need to show that from scripture,

Then YOU must believe that NO one, not Abel, Adam, Moses, Isaiah, David, and Everyone in the Old Testament will go to Hell and not Heaven

The bible says they were in sheol. Jesus’ tomb wasn’t the only tomb that burst open when Jesus rose from the dead. Matt 27:52 The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth... 39 And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

because the verse don't say the words you want them to say. Right?

No, there are loads of different ways the Genesis could describe Adam being born again, it just doesn’t.

The Christians here now understand WHY I have asked you several times IF you have been born again. Unless you have, everything I say will be Foolishness to you for Jesus said: John 10:27
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me:

The problem is, you and I may be born again, but we are not Jesus. If other born again believers don’t agree with us, it doesn’t mean they can’t hear Jesus voice. You see, having the Spirt of God in our hearts means we can hear his voice and learn from him. It doesn’t mean we are immune to our own wild ideas or that every wild idea of our that other believers reject is really the wisdom of God and only seems foolish to them because they aren’t listening to God. We may be born again but our foolish ideas can really be our own ideas and simply foolish.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Assyrian:>>That is a different argument, and it doesn't help you with my point that Genesis 2 doesn't say Adam was created on the third day.
​

Dear Assyrian, Adam was formed on the 3rd Day (Gen. 2:4-7) and was born again on the 6th Day at the SAME time Eve was born Spiritually. (Gen:1:27 and Gen. 5:1-2) Eve was built from Adam's tissue, on the 6th Day. (Gen. 2:22) Adam was NOT created on the 3rd day, He was made or shaped and contained a higher intelligence level than ANY other living creature, except Jesus.
​

Assyriaqn:>>Please try to stick to the point instead of running off on other issues. You already agree God created everything, so if he formed Adam from dust that is creating Adam, whether you think it wasn't in God's image or not, it is still creating Adam. That is according to the description of creation you agreed with in post 78.

Dear Assyrian, That's my point which you are trying to dismiss. Jesus "formed" man as a Potter molds the clay and then blew into his nostrils and man became a living being. The man was NOT created in God's Image by the AGREEMENT of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It takes that agreement for anyone to be created Eternally. Genesis 1:26 "Let US", and Jhn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever;

The LORD formed Adam and God, the Trinity, created Him Spiritually.

1 Corinthians 15:46
Howbeit that was not first which is Spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is Spiritual.

Adam was formed by Jesus BEFORE the Sun, Moon, and Stars of our world. Adam saw Jesus create and bring forth, from the water, on the 5th Day, every lviing creature that moves. Gen 1:21 Adam was there on the 6th Day and named the creatures Jesus made from the dust.Genesis 2:19...BUT Adam was NOT "created in God's Image" until AFTER Eve was made AFTER the creatures made from the ground were made and named.

Adam was cast from the Garden and lived by growing food, and had 2 sons. Cain killed Abel, went to the land of Noah, and had many descendants who had high technology BEFORE the flood. Genesis 4

Then Adam and Eve were born again, born Spiritually, born Eternally by God (Eloihim-the Trinity), changed from a man of flesh, into a New creature by the agreement of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Genesis 5:1-2 Like all men, Adam was first physical, and later Spiritually Created in Christ, and as sure for heaven as Jesus.


Assyrian:>>Can you address my point that Genesis 2 doesn't say Adam was created (or formed) on the third day?

Yes. The birds, like Adam, were shaped by the hands of Jesus (YHWH) on the 6th Day from the dust of the ground. When God created the birds from the water, on the 5th Day, ELOHIM, by the agreement of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the birds were created to be sexually compatible, identical, to "His kind", the Lord God's kind, YHWH's kind, Jesus' kind, which were not made of the dust until the NEXT Day. God sees the end from the beginning. Isaiah 46 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)
​

Assyrian:>>How were birds supposed to reproduce, Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." if God hadn't given them bodies? How can Genesis 1 even describe these birds being created if they hadn't been made yet?

God made them to match the birds Jesus would make on the 6th Day. I think it's really miraculous and cool at the same time. God created and brought forth birds, which were exactly like the birds which Jesus would not make from the dust of the ground, until much later. He did the SAME with man. Adam's daughters produced offspring with the sons of God. Gen 6:4 The sons of God were made the 5th Day and Adam's daughters could NOT have been made until the 6th Day since Eve was not made until the 6th Day.

The sons of God (Prhistoric people) who came forth from the water were the SAME as Noah's grandsons. His grandsons married and produced children with them showing that they were the same, one made, on the 3rd Day and one made on the 5th. Both together produced today's humans. They were not Angels, but were exactly like Cain's wife. They were non human prehistoric people who did NOT evolve from Adam, which is WHY they were Not humans.


Continued..........

 

[Aman777]

Assyrian:>>Or if you are reading Genesis 1 as a prophecy of what God was going to create, why pick and choose which parts are prophetic? You claim Adam was really formed on day three, when God really made all the plants, but day five switches to prophetic and God didn't really make the birds then, that was going to be day six.

As I explained earlier in this post, God made the birds on Day 5, which were made from the water, the SAME, and sexually compatible with the birds which Jesus did not make until Day 6. Here's the Scripture:

Gen. 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after *** His kind:*** and God saw that it was good.

Don't believe it was God speaking of the kind Jesus made, BEFORE Jesus made them? IT's proof of God for ONLY God sees the future.

Assyrian:>>There are coherent interpretations of Genesis 1 that say day seven is prophetic, it is the only day without an evening and morning. There is another interpretation, Days of Proclamation, which say all of Genesis 1 is prophetic and took place in eternity, God proclaiming what he was going to create, before the work of creation ever too place. But your interpretation jumps in an out of prophetic to rearrange Genesis 1 in whatever way suits you.

Genesis chapter 1 is the History of the 6 Day or Age creation of the 3rd Heaven which continues today, since we haven't passed the poiin in the History which is AFTER God creates Adam (mankind) in His Image. God is STILL creating mankind in Christ and His work will continue for at least another 1,000 years. Want Scripture?

Aman:>>Here is another example. Mar 12:36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on My right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Here David is speaking of the Father speaking to the Son, and using the SAME word for each of them. ONLY by STUDY and the help of the Holy Spirit can a believer rightly divide the Word of Truth. This is not the usual manner of speaking for Lord God is YHWH in the Old and God is Elohim, according to the KJV translators.
​

Assyrian:>>Yes I understand you capitalise 'His' in 'according to his kind' because you think is refers to Christ. I have just shown you 'his' refers to the singular masculine noun oph, bird. In Gen 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, oph is in the plural, 'their kind' not 'Their kind'. Heron and stork are feminine nouns, that is why it says in Lev 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind. It is her kind not 'Her kind'. If you capitalise 'His' kind, you are ascribing divinity to birds.

No, I'm not. I am referring to Jesus and I always capitalize His Holy Name The fowl of the 6th Day, which Jesus made from the land, were identical with the fowl which the Father brought forth from the water on the 5th Day. So were the sons of God the SAME as those made from the water on a different Day. I am sorry you are so confused. Perhaps you are trying to make the traditional view agree with Scripture. You cannot.

Assyrian:>>It is the same word Lord in the Greek Septuagint, however it is a quotation from Psalm 110:1 A Psalm of David. The L[FONT=&quot]ORD[/FONT] says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool." In the Hebrew the word L[FONT=&quot]ORD[/FONT] used for the Father is Yahweh while the word Lord used for the Messiah is Adonai. It is also worth pointing out that where our English translations say L[FONT=&quot]ORD[/FONT] God, such as in Genesis 2, the Hebrew is actually Yahweh Elohim.
​

Aman:>>No, since the earth "brought forth" plants on the 3rd day:
Gen. 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after His kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after His kind: and God saw that it was good.
​

Assyrian:>>What has this got to do with Yahweh referring to the Father in Psalm 110 or Genesis 2 talking about Yahweh Elohim.

I posted that verse to show you that David referred to them by the SAME name. God is One. God is Love, Jesus is Love. God is LORD. Jesus is LORD. One is the Father, and one is the Son. It's the only way the verse makes sense.

Aman:>>Since the plants were not made for the Garden until AFTER Adam was made, he would have been made in an arid wilderness void of plants. Genesis 2:8
It is the reason it was a wilderness is the issue. Can you get back to my question in post 82:

Assyrian:>>Was a lack of rain the reason there were no plants on day three in Genesis 1?
​

Aman:>>Genesis 2 is telling us that man was formed of the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day AFTER the Earth was made, but BEFORE the plants. Genesis 2:8 shows that the plants were made AFTER man was made in total AGREEMENT with the events of the 3rd Day as shown in Genesis 1:9-12 in which the Earth was made and then the plants. Genesis 2 is explaining that between the earth being made and the plants appearing, the LORD made man.
​

Assyrian:>>Sigh. Did Day 3 start off with with the earth under water or not? It is a very simple question. If the earth wasn't under water, why did God say Gen 1:9 Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear?

Good question. When the waters under the heaven were gathered together they made a great roar, and God called this roaring, Seas, which in Hebrew means a roaring. The Seas roared with a great noise when they were brought from under the solid firmament, into it.

Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

The first Earth and the Seas are now in physical form showing that the Earth (dry land) was no longer under the firmament, but inside it.

continued..........

 

[Aman777]

Aman:>>Genesis 1 is in the Outline of ALL of the rest of Scripture. Genesis 2:4-7 is referring BACK to the SAME 3rd Day, and adding the information that on the 3rd Day, After the earth is made, but Before the plants grew, the Lord formed man. The agreement is total. Both accounts are the same.
​

Assyrian:>>Whether you think Genesis 1 outlines all of scripture or not, Genesis 2:5-7 does not describe Day 3 in Genesis 1. The only similarity is the lack of plants.

Not so. Genesis tells us that AFTER the earth was made but BEFORE the plants, herbs, trees, rain, and man.

Genesis 2:5 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.

AFTER man was made, the Trees filled the Garden.

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.
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.

The fact that you cannot see that man was made before the plants, herbs, rain, and trees, shows that neither can you see that there was a void of nothingness BEFORE man was made. You said:>>>>>Genesis 2:5-7 does not describe Day 3 in Genesis 1. The only similarity is the lack of plants.<<<<<<

Assyrian:>>Genesis 2 has an arid wilderness, Day 3 starts off with the earth underwater. You would need every last drop of water to be removed from the ground when God separated the waters from the land, which is conceivable, but it is not a reason plants could not grow. If the earth was saturated in the morning, and had been saturated since its creation, and was only dry in the afternoon, a lack of rain is not the reason for there being no plants. If a lack of rain is the reason there are no plants it means there were plants to grow, and time for them to grow if there had been rain. The reason there were no plants on Day 3 is simply because God had not created them yet. Genesis 1 describes God creating from a watery chaos. In Genesis 2 creation is from a wilderness, a barren and dry chaos. In Genesis 2 plants, would have grown if there had been rain and a man to till the ground.

We're not dealing is what you can imagine, but what is actually written. Man was formed of the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day after the Earth was made but BEFORE the plants grew. Genesis 2:4-7

Assyrian:>>You are not addressing my question.
​

Genesis 2:8 and Genesis 1:12 agree. BOTH say that the plants grew on the 3rd day. Genesis 2:8 is adding the information that it was AFTER Adam was made when the plants were placed in the Garden.
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.

Plants were made AFTER man was formed of the dust of the ground.
​

Assyrian:>>You are still not addressing my question. Here it is again.

And when God separated waters from the land did a lack of rain explain why plants didn't spring up immediately?

The first Earth was NOT like our Earth. It was in the middle of water and the firmament protected it from the water in which is existed. The water would STAY in the firmament IF it got in there, and that's what happened. The windows from on high were opened, the firmament filled with rain, the water cycle produced more rain, for 40 days, before the firmament was filled and sank, and the Ark floated out onto Lake Van in the mountains of Ararat exactly as God told us it did.
​

Aman:>>They tell the SAME story the prescientific theologians believed. By mixing the traditional thinking of early man with a "plain" reading, they cannot reconcile what is written with the Truth which has been documented by Science and History.
​

Assyrian:>>>They describe the same creation in very different ways. Which leaves literalists like you and other creationists trying to find ways to reconcile your literal interpretations. Genesis two doesn't say anything about it taking place on the third day.

Sure it does. It was the SAME day the Earth was made. Genesis 1:9-10 show that the first Earth was made the 3rd Day, then Adam, then plants, which Genesis 1 shows grew on the 3rd Day. IF you don't agree, then tell us which Day it was?

Assyrian:>>That is your way of trying to reconcile the two stories, and you choose this method because Genesis 2 describes God creating plants. Other creationist try to reconcile the two accounts by saying Genesis 2 takes place on Day 6, after all Genesis 2 describes God making Adam which happens on Day in Genesis 1. But again just as Genesis 2 doesn't say it happens on Day three, it doesn't say it happens on Day six either. Both you and other creationists take two very different descriptions of God's creation and try to reconcile them.

The difference is that I support my views with actual Scripture which agrees with me, and the agreement of the discoveries of Science and History which totally agree with God's Holy Word. That's too high a standard for most so called scholars.

To be continued...

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

I suppose it depends on what you would call a landscape devoid of plants, which were NOT made until AFTER man was formed of the dust. Your confusion is obvious.
​

Assyrian:>>It isn’t about the what we call a dry rainless land without plant life, though barren wilderness seems a pretty reasonable. The issue is that the description in Genesis 2 of the land Adam was formed in is completely different from what we see on Day 3 in genesis 1.

Aman:>>No, it's not. Genesis 2:4 tells us it was "in the Day" the Lord God made the Earth, which was the 3rd Day. Genesis 2;5 tells us it was BEFORE the plants grew, which was the 3rd Day according to Genesis 1:12.

Aman:>>Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.
This verse shows that God has concealed His Truth from unbelievers. I have posted that people who have NOT been born Spiritually see Scripture as "foolishness" and cannot understand it. Now, you tell me that if an unbeliever cannot understand the plain reading, then something is wrong. I agree. It is your insistance that a "plain" reading is the only way to understand Scripture, I will tell you that God says something else.

Assyrian:>>No I am saying the deeper meaning revealed by the Spirit of God will not do violence to the plain menacing of the text. Just because your reading is different from the plain meaning of the text doesn’t mean it is revealed to you by God. Your cut and paste rearrangement of the two accounts to try to make them fit is not the deeper meaning of the text, it is simply another human effort to make the two texts agree.

My interpretation shows that both chapters are telling the SAME story, There is NO contradiction except in the minds of those who insist the traditional view is correct. It is NOT. It reveals the confusion of those who try to use it by showing that their view of chapter one doesn't agree with their view of chapter two.

Aman:>>You cannot make Scripture agree by showing two contradicting stories in the first two chapters of the Bible authored by the Holy Spirit.
​

Assyrian:>>The fact that the two accounts contradict when they are read literally only means they are not meant to be read literally. Of course once you realise they are not meant to be read literally, then there is no contradiction between them, they both describe God’s work of creation sometimes describing the same spiritual truth in different picture in other areas pointing out deep truth not touched on in the other account.

No they don't. It's your interpretation which does NOT agree with Scripture. That is what is wrong. The most glaring flaw is trying to show that man was made the 6th Day, which allows Godless Evolution to occur. That is UnScriptural since Genesis 2:4-7 clearly show that man was formed of the dust on the SAME Day the first Earth was made but BEFORE the plants. That is the 3rd Day. Genesis 1:9-12

Aman:>>The problem is that the human race did not evolve from other creatures.
​

Assyrian:>>It thought you said “God's Holy Word agrees in EVERY way with EVERY discovery of Science and History.”


It does. Today's Science is ignorant of the fact that God made 3 heavens instead of just one. We live in a Multiverse. Genesis one shows the world of Adam on the first 3 days, then shows the Big Bang happened in our Cosmos on the 3rd Day, and the account is of our world on the last 3 days.

Aman:>>Adam was made before ANY other creature making it impossible for him to have evolved.
​

Assyrian:>>Sorry the text doesn’t say that. The very fact you and other creationists have to rearrange the order of the creation accounts to make them fit tells us the accounts aren’t about what was made first. We have looked at the very common biblical metaphor of God as a potter making each of us from clay, if you and I can be formed from clay by God the potter yet still have a mother and father, grandfathers and grandmothers, then God forming Adam from clay doesn’t mean he was made before any other creature either.

No. Scripture shows conclusively that man was formed from the dust on the 3rd Day, and you cannot refute it, so you claim it could not be that way,...BUT....you have provided NO Scriptural refute, but only your convinction that it just couldn't be there because you haven't seen it before.

Aman:>>ALL humans are the descendants of Adam. On our Planet, it was through Noah's grandsons, who like Cain, had NO other humans to marry. They married and produced today's humans with the sons of God (Prehistoric people) on both worlds. Gen. 6:4
​

Assyrian:>>The potter metaphor means that not only could Adam’s children marry prehistoric people, Adam could be descended from them too. The potter metaphor says God made him, it doesn’t mean God didn’t use parents to do it.

Adam was made on Day 3, which is some 9 Billion years BEFORE the living creatures were made from the water, on the 5th Day. Each of God's Days or Ages are some 4.5 Billion years in length. Adam was made to have preeminence or first place for humans are destined to have dominion or rule over EVERY other living creature. Putting mankind in last place makes humans the lowest, and not the highest of God's creations.

Aman:>>We evolved or changed from the sons of God into humans when prehistoric people married and produced children with the descendants of Adam, the first Human. We have an intelligence which is like God's, which only humans have. Genesis 3:22
​

Assyrian:>>Genesis 3:22 doesn’t actually say any of that. Other animal are intelligent, just not as intelligent as humans. There is no reason God couldn’t have used evolution to give humans the intelligence we have with this being the biological process God used to make us, while Genesis describe God’s workmanship with the potter metaphor.

For 99% of the time since Lucy walked on our Planet, we remained animal like. We chased other animals for our food, and lived in Caves until SUDDENLY Noah arrived in the mountains of Ararat. Human civilization on this planet can be traced to Noah and to the area where the Ark arrived and brought the superior intelligence of Adam to our small planet of Great Apes descendants.

Assyrian:>>Since Adam was "formed" from the dust on the 3rd Day, explain what it means by saying Adam was "created in God's Image" on the 6th Day.

It means Adam and Eve were "created in God's Image" or in Christ, Spiritually, Eternally. Adam could NOT have been created Eternally on the 3rd Day, for God could see that he would fall....AND...Eve was not made until the 6th Day. Genesis 2:22 God called THEIR name Adam, in the Day they were created Spiritually.

Aman:>>The New Testament tells us that the living was FIRST, and then LATER became Spiritual. Remember that you said Jesus was the second Adam. Try to make sense of that, since Jesus is second to NOTHING. Jesus is God, the Alpha the beginning and the Omega, the ending.
Tradition says the second Adam was Jesus, but that understanding contradicts the Scriptural fact that Jesus is not second at anything.

Assyrian:>>Sorry I don’t accept your premise that Adam was formed on the 3rd Day. Jesus is before all things existing from all eternity in God, however he was born after Adam.

Not so. YHWH, the Light of the first Day, speaks of that first Day in the Garden of Gethsemane, just BEFORE His Crucifixion. John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou Me with thine own self with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.

There was but ONE Day before the world was, and that is the FIRST Day. Jesus is the Light of the first Day. He had a physical brightness for He is the only God ever formed or that ever will be formed. Jesus Is LORD.

Assyrian:>>Jesus pointed out out the incongruity that David was the Messiah’s forefather, and children should honour and obey their parents, yet David called his descendant ‘Lord’. You can no more make rules that Jesus cannot be the second Adam than you can say Jesus couldn’t be David’s descendant. Jesus being the second Adam, that spiritual birth supercedes the flesh, is seen again and again in scripture. Cain the first born was not the one accepted by God, it was Abel. It wasn’t Ishmael who was the child of promise it was Abraham’s second son Isaac. Esau was first born but Jacob was the one God chose. Saul was the first king of Israel but God rejected him and anointed David the second king, a man after God’s heart.

Jesus is the beginning of the creation.
Revelation 3:13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Jesus is the Light of the first Day, the beginning of the creation of God.

Aman:>>Since Jesus was also NOT the last man, explain your traitional view Scripturally...IF you can.
​

Assyrian:>>Checking 1Cor 15:45-47 Paul calls Christ ‘last Adam’ and ‘the second man’. If you want to understand second Adam, look at the first time Paul talks about Adam in the chapter, 1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
The whole human race is either in Adam and dead in their sins, or in Christ, spiritually alive and destine to the resurrection in him. In Paul's apocalyptic symbolism, the whole human race is summed up in these two men, the first Adam and the last Adam Christ, the first man and the second man. The problem for your interpretation is the second man, who if you want to take Paul literally, was Cain (or since anthropos can be male or female, Eve).

1Cor 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven…
49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

Assyrian:>>Was Adam from heaven or was was it Jesus who came from heaven? Are we being conformed to the image of Adam or of Christ?

It confirms my view that the born again Adam will be like Christ. The first Adam was made from the ground, but the born again Adam will be conformed to the Image of Jesus. We will get back the Skekinah Glory which we lost when Adam sinned. We will again be like Jesus, who's brighter than the Noonday Sun.

Aman:>>Have YOU been born again? of the Spirit of God?
​

Assyrian:>>Yes and yes. Of course rebirth was a promise that would come with the New Covenant Ezekiel 36:26 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.
27 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
28 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. Where does the bible say Adam was born again?

Aman:>>You are saying that God should have written Genesis with the words you prefer. I keep telling you that a "plain reading" would allow ANY unbeliever to understand, and Scripture tells us they CANNOT, but you keep asking for Scripture to use the words "born again" instead of saying "created in God's Image." That is WHY I asked you IF you had been born again.

Continued.............
​

 

[Aman777]

Assyrian:>>I have shown you that God’s image isn’t all or nothing. When we are born again we are transformed from glory to glory, further and further into God’s image, but if being born again transforms us further into God’s image, then people who aren’t born again can also be in God’s image because that is how God created mankind. I have shown you how God’s image is applied to all of mankind. We see it in Romans 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them. Gentiles who know nothing of God’s law, still have God’s law written on their hearts guiding their actions, though not always. They do may not know God or his law and are not born again but buy their actions or even by their conscience condemning other acts show they still bear the image of the Creator.

Aman:>>Only if you stop at my first words.
​

Assyrian:>>It was your next sentence I was commenting on.
“I know the next verse says that the second Adam is the Lord from heaven.” If you know the second Adam is the Lord from heaven, how can you claim the second Adam isn’t Christ?

Aman:>>Did you read that Scripture is referring to becoming like the LORD from heaven. That is not my view, but the view of J. Vernon McGee who does the complete anaylsis which has been accepted for decades.
​

Assyrian:>>More than just a few decades, that is what the church has always believed. Now I am not saying you can’t challenge tradition, but you need a better basis than the one you have. Of course Paul is telling us in the passage that we are to become like Christ, the man from heaven, that doesn’t change the fact that Paul is describing Christ as the second man the last Adam, the man from heaven. We were born of flesh bearing the image of the first Adam are we are to be transformed into the image of the heavenly man, Christ.

Aman:>>I'm sorry that you don't understand. J. Vernon McGee has already gone on to be with Jesus, so I guess you will have to discuss it with him when you see him in heaven.
​

Assyrian:>>I suggest you take it up with him, I suspect you are missing the point he was making. What I have been discussing with you is your claim Adam was born again, you need to show that from scripture,

Aman:>>Then YOU must believe that NO one, not Abel, Adam, Moses, Isaiah, David, and Everyone in the Old Testament will go to Hell and not Heaven
​

Assyrian:>>The bible says they were in sheol. Jesus’ tomb wasn’t the only tomb that burst open when Jesus rose from the dead. Matt 27:52 The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth... 39 And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

What it means is that we will ALL be changed at the last Trump. We will all become like Christ, with our own Shekinah Glory, we will be made perfect, again, physically.

Aman:>>because the verse don't say the words you want them to say. Right?
​

Assyrian:>>No, there are loads of different ways the Genesis could describe Adam being born again, it just doesn’t.

The Christians here now understand WHY I have asked you several times IF you have been born again. Unless you have, everything I say will be Foolishness to you for Jesus said: John 10:27
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me:
​

Assyrian:>>The problem is, you and I may be born again, but we are not Jesus. If other born again believers don’t agree with us, it doesn’t mean they can’t hear Jesus voice. You see, having the Spirt of God in our hearts means we can hear his voice and learn from him. It doesn’t mean we are immune to our own wild ideas or that every wild idea of our that other believers reject is really the wisdom of God and only seems foolish to them because they aren’t listening to God. We may be born again but our foolish ideas can really be our own ideas and simply foolish.
__________________

I agree. That's why I seek the agreement of Scripture, Science, and History. When I find it, I believe I have come as close as humanly possible to the One Truth of God. God's Truth MUST agree with the factual discoveries of Science and History, or it is NOT God's Truth.

The traditional religious view does NOT agree with either Scripture, Science, nor History. That is because it's the wrong interpretation of God's Holy Word.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Assyrian]

post 94

Dear Assyrian, That's my point which you are trying to dismiss. Jesus "formed" man as a Potter molds the clay and then blew into his nostrils and man became a living being.

No, what I am trying to do is stop you running off on tangents every time I mention Adam being created. You want to distinguish 'formed' from 'created in his image', that is fine, we can discuss that. The problem is you mix up 'created' with 'create in his image' and run off on a 'created in his image' argument every time I mention 'created'. You know that everything that exists, everything God made and formed, is created by God. So when the LORD God formed Adam from mud in Genesis 2, that is creating him.

If you want to argue Adam wasn't created in Gen 2:7, then talk about the meaning of the the word 'create'. Don't go off about 'created in his image' because that is a different issue.

The man was NOT created in God's Image by the AGREEMENT of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It takes that agreement for anyone to be created Eternally. Genesis 1:26 "Let US", and Jhn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever;

The LORD formed Adam and God, the Trinity, created Him Spiritually.

Genesis 2 doesn't say the LORD formed Adam it says the LORD God formed him, Yahweh Elohim. How is that not God the Trinity? I have shown you how Yahweh is used for the Father as well as the Son. You argue that Elohim is plural and refers to the Trinity, how is Yahweh Elohim not the Trinity? Jesus told us he does nothing without the agreement of his father. John 5:19 the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.

1 Corinthians 15:46
Howbeit that was not first which is Spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is Spiritual.

Adam was formed by Jesus BEFORE the Sun, Moon, and Stars of our world. Adam saw Jesus create and bring forth, from the water, on the 5th Day, every lviing creature that moves. Gen 1:21 Adam was there on the 6th Day and named the creatures Jesus made from the dust.Genesis 2:19...BUT Adam was NOT "created in God's Image" until AFTER Eve was made AFTER the creatures made from the ground were made and named.

Adam was cast from the Garden and lived by growing food, and had 2 sons. Cain killed Abel, went to the land of Noah, and had many descendants who had high technology BEFORE the flood. Genesis 4

Then Adam and Eve were born again, born Spiritually, born Eternally by God (Eloihim-the Trinity), changed from a man of flesh, into a New creature by the agreement of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Genesis 5:1-2 Like all men, Adam was first physical, and later Spiritually Created in Christ, and as sure for heaven as Jesus.

I addressed 1Cor 15 further down my post. Lets stick to looking at it there.

...

Looks like you are still avoiding my point: Genesis 2 doesn't say Adam was created (or formed) on the third day.

God made them to match the birds Jesus would make on the 6th Day. I think it's really miraculous and cool at the same time. God created and brought forth birds, which were exactly like the birds which Jesus would not make from the dust of the ground, until much later.

So God had to make birds twice? Gen 2:19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens. That sounds to me God is creating every bird not creating a second batch. As I have mentioned before, this discussion is about you efforts to line up the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2. The fact you end up with birds being created twice suggests you have the two accounts misaligned.

Incidentally, the birds in Genesis 1 were created through and by Jesus. John 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.

He did the SAME with man. Adam's daughters produced offspring with the sons of God. Gen 6:4 The sons of God were made the 5th Day and Adam's daughters could NOT have been made until the 6th Day since Eve was not made until the 6th Day.

The sons of God (Prhistoric people) who came forth from the water were the SAME as Noah's grandsons. His grandsons married and produced children with them showing that they were the same, one made, on the 3rd Day and one made on the 5th. Both together produced today's humans. They were not Angels, but were exactly like Cain's wife. They were non human prehistoric people who did NOT evolve from Adam, which is WHY they were Not humans.

It is probably a side issue, but where do you think these prehistoric people came from? You claim Adam was created on day three, but that God didn't create a woman until day six.

Continued..........[/quote]

post 95

As I explained earlier in this post, God made the birds on Day 5, which were made from the water, the SAME, and sexually compatible with the birds which Jesus did not make until Day 6.

Get you now, double creation rather than prophetic.

Here's the Scripture:

Gen. 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after *** His kind:*** and God saw that it was good.

Don't believe it was God speaking of the kind Jesus made, BEFORE Jesus made them? IT's proof of God for ONLY God sees the future.

You still haven't dealt with the fact 'his' refers to the bird, not to Christ.

Genesis chapter 1 is the History of the 6 Day or Age creation of the 3rd Heaven which continues today, since we haven't passed the poiin in the History which is AFTER God creates Adam (mankind) in His Image. God is STILL creating mankind in Christ and His work will continue for at least another 1,000 years. Want Scripture?

You certainly get rid of some of the problems in you interpretation if you make created in God's image prophetic speaking of the new birth and resurrection that come though Christ, but if you want to make it prophetic of the new covenant, you would need to stop speaking as though Adam himself was born again.

Assyrian:>>Yes I understand you capitalise 'His' in 'according to his kind' because you think is refers to Christ.

No, I'm not. I am referring to Jesus and I always capitalize His Holy Name

Did you read what I said?

I have just shown you 'his' refers to the singular masculine noun oph, bird. In Gen 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, oph is in the plural, 'their kind' not 'Their kind'. Heron and stork are feminine nouns, that is why it says in Lev 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind. It is her kind not 'Her kind'. If you capitalise 'His' kind, you are ascribing divinity to birds.

The fowl of the 6th Day, which Jesus made from the land, were identical with the fowl which the Father brought forth from the water on the 5th Day. So were the sons of God the SAME as those made from the water on a different Day. I am sorry you are so confused. Perhaps you are trying to make the traditional view agree with Scripture. You cannot.

No I am looking at why the translator said 'his kind', the pronoun refers back to the previous noun of the same number and gender. The singular masculine pronoun he refers back to the previous singular noun bird. Every time kind is mentioned in Genesis Leviticus and Deuteronomy it comes with a pronoun, his kind, her kind, their kind, every time the pronoun matches the gender and number of the animals whose kind is being talked about, birds according to their kind Gen 6:20, And the stork, the heron (singular feminine nouns) after her kind Lev 11:19. Why does his kind on day 5 break this pattern we see everywhere else kind is used? Shouldn't we follow normal Hebrew grammar to understand who 'his' refers to?

Even if you wanted to look for something else for 'his' to refer to, you still have to find a singular masculine noun in the text for it to refer back to. There is no mention of Christ in the text in singular masculine terms, there may be the hint later on in verse 26 when God speaks in the plural 'let us make man', but while Christ is part of the us, he is not referred to as a singular masculine person distinct in the text from the 'us' that you could try to link with the singular masculine 'his'. In fact God, Elohim, is treated as a singular before verse 26. The verbs used for God are singular masculine, Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created, singular masculine, Gen 1:3 And God said, singular masculine. You can see this more clearly in Gen 1:5 and the darkness he called Night, and Gen 1:10 and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas.

So lets look at where God creates every winged bird according to his kind. Remember you are already ignoring the grammar that connects 'his' kind back to bird, and the way kind is used everywhere else with a pronoun referring back to the animal the kind is, 'her' kind, 'their' kind, matching the animals gender and number in the text. Lets look at what we are left with

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Waters takes a plural verb, every living creature is feminine, whales are plural. That leaves God, a plural masculine noun but treated as singular masculine in the text, the verb is 'he created'. So if you want something to refer 'his' kind back to, it would have to be the one described by the verb 'he created', God, not just Christ. Of course 'his' kind really refers to 'bird'.

Now if you want to address this point, it is the third time I have explained the Hebrew to you, please address what I said about the Hebrew. Don't pretend I can't understand what you are saying, I do understand, I am am explaining why it is simply wrong.

I posted that verse to show you that David referred to them by the SAME name. God is One. God is Love, Jesus is Love. God is LORD. Jesus is LORD. One is the Father, and one is the Son. It's the only way the verse makes sense.

So you are going to ignore what I showed you in the Hebrew, that David used different names?

Good question. When the waters under the heaven were gathered together they made a great roar, and God called this roaring, Seas, which in Hebrew means a roaring. The Seas roared with a great noise when they were brought from under the solid firmament, into it.

Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

The first Earth and the Seas are now in physical form showing that the Earth (dry land) was no longer under the firmament, but inside it.

continued..........

If it is a good question why not answer it?

 

[Assyrian]

post 96

Assyrian:>>Whether you think Genesis 1 outlines all of scripture or not, Genesis 2:5-7 does not describe Day 3 in Genesis 1. The only similarity is the lack of plants.

Not so. Genesis tells us that AFTER the earth was made but BEFORE the plants, herbs, trees, rain, and man.

Genesis 2:5 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.

AFTER man was made, the Trees filled the Garden.

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.
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.

Don't know why you say 'Not So' when you do not deal with what I said. Both accounts deal with God creating plants. But the world described where God creates the plants is totally different. The only similarity is the lack of plants. The condition on earth and the reasons for the lack of plants are completely different.

The fact that you cannot see that man was made before the plants, herbs, rain, and trees, shows that neither can you see that there was a void of nothingness BEFORE man was made. You said:>>>>>Genesis 2:5-7 does not describe Day 3 in Genesis 1. The only similarity is the lack of plants.<<<<<<

The problem for you is the 'voids of nothingness' in the two account are completely different. In Genesis 1 you have a watery chaos, the earth is formless and void, covered in water under the face of the deep. In Genesis 2 it is a barren and dry wilderness.

Assyrian:>>Genesis 2 has an arid wilderness, Day 3 starts off with the earth underwater. You would need every last drop of water to be removed from the ground when God separated the waters from the land, which is conceivable, but it is not a reason plants could not grow. If the earth was saturated in the morning, and had been saturated since its creation, and was only dry in the afternoon, a lack of rain is not the reason for there being no plants. If a lack of rain is the reason there are no plants it means there were plants to grow, and time for them to grow if there had been rain. The reason there were no plants on Day 3 is simply because God had not created them yet. Genesis 1 describes God creating from a watery chaos. In Genesis 2 creation is from a wilderness, a barren and dry chaos. In Genesis 2 plants, would have grown if there had been rain and a man to till the ground.

We're not dealing is what you can imagine, but what is actually written. Man was formed of the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day after the Earth was made but BEFORE the plants grew. Genesis 2:4-7

If you want to stick to what is actually written, why keep claiming man was formed on the third day? Scripture doesn't say that. It does describe the world when Adam was formed in Genesis 2 and it is very different from the world described on Day 3 in Genesis 1. Genesis 2 also tells us the reasons there were no plants, for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground Gen 2:5. These reasons simply do not fit the world described in Day 3. If you want to line Day 3 up with Genesis 2, please explain how the reasons for the lack of plants in we are given in Genesis 2 can possibly fit Day 3 in Genesis 1.

Assyrian:>>You are not addressing my question.

Genesis 2:8 and Genesis 1:12 agree. BOTH say that the plants grew on the 3rd day. Genesis 2:8 is adding the information that it was AFTER Adam was made when the plants were placed in the Garden.
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.

Plants were made AFTER man was formed of the dust of the ground.

How does that address the question?

Assyrian:>>You are still not addressing my question. Here it is again.
And when God separated waters from the land did a lack of rain explain why plants didn't spring up immediately?

The first Earth was NOT like our Earth. It was in the middle of water and the firmament protected it from the water in which is existed. The water would STAY in the firmament IF it got in there, and that's what happened. The windows from on high were opened, the firmament filled with rain, the water cycle produced more rain, for 40 days, before the firmament was filled and sank, and the Ark floated out onto Lake Van in the mountains of Ararat exactly as God told us it did.

You go to the trouble of quoting the very question. why not answer it? Does it worry you that you simply cannot address these problems?

Sure it does. It was the SAME day the Earth was made.

Genesis 2 says it take place Gen 2:4 in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. But which day of Genesis 1 is that supposed to be? The first day? Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was... The second day? Gen 1:8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. The third day, when Gen 1:10 God called the dry land Earth? Of course without sun moon and stars, the heavens were hardly finished yet, that wasn't until the fourth day. Or does it refer to the full six day God took making the heavens and the earth Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Genesis 1:9-10 show that the first Earth was made the 3rd Day, then Adam, then plants, which Genesis 1 shows grew on the 3rd Day. IF you don't agree, then tell us which Day it was?

I have told you before, my interpretation doesn't need to line them up. It makes no more sense than asking where the angel's fishing net is in the parable of the weeds. Only literalists have to try to line the two creation accounts up, and as I have said before the standard Creationist approach, lining Genesis 2 up with day six when God created Adam, does much less violence to the text than your attempt to line it up with day three

The difference is that I support my views with actual Scripture which agrees with me, and the agreement of the discoveries of Science and History which totally agree with God's Holy Word. That's too high a standard for most so called scholars.

And you think other creationists don't try to use scripture to support their views? But it is the scriptures that contradict your views that are the real issue, that is where you, and other creationists, fail in your attempt to reconcile the two accounts.

To be continued...