theological problem with the "sons of god" being human

[Assyrian]

post 97

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.

Then why do we read about the earth in Genesis 1:1&2? Genesis 2:4 says in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. What day did God make the heavens?

Assyrian:>>No I am saying the deeper meaning revealed by the Spirit of God will not do violence to the plain meaning 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.

In have shown you loads of problem with your interpretation which you just keep ignoring. Perhaps you could address the point I made:

Just because your reading is different from the plain meaning of the text doesn’t mean it is revealed to you by God.
​

You were talking about Proverbs 25:5 and learning the meaning of scripture from the Holy Spirit. Instead of just claiming you are right and everybody else wrong wouldn't it be better to discuss the issue you brought up? Does it mean you got your interpretation from the Holy Spirit if the interpretation is different from the plain meaning of the text? Or can people come up with wrong interpretations that don't match the plain meaning on their own?

When we have scriptures that are interpreted in the bible, like the parables that Jesus explained, the meaning certainly isn't the same as the plain meaning of the text. The parable of the seeds wasn't about farming, it was really about people hearing the Word. The Prodigal Son wasn't really about a dysfunctional family and a son blowing his inheritance on wild parties. The question is, how well does the real meaning fit the plain meaning of the text? It may be speaking to us on a very different level, but doesn't it still fit the story? Your interpretation has to chop Genesis up and rearrange it, that's not what Jesus did when he explained his parables.

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.

You mean like Genesis 1 where it says man was created on the sixth day? I don't actually need that for my interpretation, it is just there. Now I have shown you lots of places where your interpretation doesn't fit scripture and you can't answer, you haven't actually shown me anywhere where my interpretation doesn't fit.

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

Genesis 2 doesn't say man was made on the third day. Remember I keep asking you about that and you keep changing the subject? Adam being made from dust on the third day is your idea, something you conclude from your understanding of scripture, but it isn't what scripture says. You need to show me where my interpretation contradicts scripture, not where it contradicts your own ideas.

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.

Evolution is one of the most important discoveries of science. You shouldn't go claiming “God's Holy Word agrees in EVERY way with EVERY discovery of Science and History" and then disagree with science. That makes no sense.

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.

Sorry I have refuted it. The whole of the bible refutes it because scripture simply does not say that, anywhere.

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.

If only you could show Adam was made form dust on the third day or that each day is 4.5 Billion years in length. Of course our evolutionary history of man goes back long before the first plants appeared on land, but that is irrelevant. The potter metaphor means the description is metaphorical and any attempts to fit a metaphor into a timeline is meaningless. You might as well try to work out the length of each hour in the parable of the labourers.

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.

Sorry your extraterrestrial Noah doesn't change the fact human intelligence could have evolved or the evidence of increasing cranial capacity and increasing technological abilities and increasing artistic skills long before the neolithic revolution in the fertile crescent.

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.

Another of you 'Not So's. How does you statement contradict mine?

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.

You don't think Christ is eternal, that he existed in God eternal ages before the world began?

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.

What has that got to do with my point?

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.

Any scriptural reference for Adam's shekinah glory? Any references to Adam being born again? Any chance you could address my point or am I just wasting my time here?

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.............

Perhaps you could address my point that rebirth comes with the New Covenant.

post 98

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.

What has that got to do with OT saints being in sheol until Jesus rose from the dead?

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

The traditional religious view, going back to people like Augustine and Aquinas was actually pretty wise when it came to science. They said that if your interpretation of scripture is contradicted by a new discovery of science, then it was never what scripture actually meant.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

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.
​

Assyrian:>>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.

Dear Assyrian, You would be correct if the events happened in English, but not if the events took place in Hebrew, which they did. In Hebrew, formed, is to shape, and to "created" the word "bara", and that happens only if the Trinity agrees, and it's always an Eternal Creation. God "creates" 3 times in Genesis 1, which is the outline of all of the rest of the Bible.

God creates the air and ground before the first Day. Gen 1:1-3
God creates every living creature from the water on the 5th Day. Gen. 1:21
God creates mankind "in His Image" on the 6th Creative Day, Today. Gen. 1:27

Assyrian:>>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.

I just did. Thanks for reminding me though.

Aman:>>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.

Assyrian:>>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?

God the Trinity is Elohim, the invisible Spirit. YHWH/Jesus is the physical manistation of God, the Image or physical incarnation of the Trinity. Jesus made Adam physiclally, and Adam sinned, and was lost, but Adam believed in Jesus, and was born again Spiritually on the 6th Day. Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 5:1-2 He and Eve were born Spiritually. They both were lost, and then both were "created in God's Image", thanks to their faith in Jesus, which is a gift from God.

Assyrian:>>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.

That confirms what I have been telling you. Jesus did NOT create Adam, You can only be "created" by the agreement of Elohim, the Trinity.

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

I note that you did not disagree with any of the verses I posted. Does that mean you are agreeing or just ignoring?
...

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

I NEVER have said that. It's called a Strawman. Genesis 2:4-7 says Adam was "formed" on the Day the earth was made and BEFORE the plants grew, but you don't like to discuss that since it destroys the view you are pushing.

Aman:>>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.

Assyrian:>>So God had to make birds twice?

No. God (Elohim) made them from the water to be like the ones Jesus made from the dust of the ground on the next day. IOW, God "created" them to be compatible with the one's Jesus made with His Own Hands, much later. That's cool. Science hasn't noticed that even today.

Jesus made them on the 6th Day, and God approved and "created" them Eternally, from the water, on the 5th Day. Sounds like fun to me. To be able to see the end from the beginning is really useful.

Assyrian:>>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.

Assyrian:>>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.

I agree, but it was God who "created" of which Jesus is the Son, so when God the Trinity creates, it is with the Agreement of the Son, but it is NOT the Son forming and NOT creating, as He did Adam, the beasts of the field and the birds, He made from the dust of the ground. God (Elohim) created them Eternally.

Aman:>>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.
​

Assyrian:>>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.

That's WHY I say that prehistoric man was not Human. The descendants of Adam are humans. The sons of God (Prehistoric people) were created and brought forth from the water, on the 5th Day, along with every other living creature that moves. Genesis 1:21 Science has learned the same thing. Our cells cannot live without water.

Adam was made Billions of years BEFORE our Solar System was formed, which was 8 Billion years AFTER the Big Bang of our Cosmos, so prehistoric man, on our Planet, is a fairly late arrival. Noah arrived AFTER prehistoric man diverged from Chimps 6 Million years ago. Noah arrived 10k years ago.

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

post 95

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

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.
​

Assyrian:>>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.
​

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

Dear Assyrian, Here's the verse:

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.

Are you trying to say that ALL birds were after his kind, thus eliminating all but one specie of bird? His kind is the manner in whch Jesus made them. They are His kind.


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.

Not so. God told our entire History in Chapter 1. Chapter 2 tells us the history of the 7th Day, which is future. Genesis 2:4 takes us back to the events of the 3rd Day just as ALL of the rest of the Bible refers BACK to the outline of the History of the creation of the 3rd Heaven, and it's 6 Creative Days.

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 point 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.
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.
​

Assyrian:>>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.

Aman:>>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.
​

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

I'm the one who posted that David said The Lord said to my Lord. Do you always jump around and answer only what you disagree with?

Aman:>>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..........
​

Assyrian:>>If it is a good question why not answer it?

Continued........is a good question? I'm beginning to suspect that one way to disagree is to jump around and try to confuse the readers into thinking you know what you're talking about.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

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.
​

Aman:>>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.
​

Assyrian:>>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.

That's the point. The plants GREW on the 3rd Day, the SAME Day man was formed of the dust of the ground. Religion teaches that man was made the 6th Day, but that is UnScriptural.

Assyrian:>>The similarites are listed

Aman:>>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.

I can see that you cannot separate what Scripture is actually saying with the traditional religious view. Your confusion is almost complete.
​

Aman:>>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:>>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.


The answer is simple. Genesis 1:9-10 tell us the DAY the Earth was made. It was the 3rd Day, the SAME Day after the earth was made. Genesis 2:4 tells us the same thing and adds in the next verse, BEFORE the plants grew, when man was formed from the dust of the ground. That's God's Truth and it's a lot simplier than your notions.
​

Aman:>>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:>>How does that address the question?

Which question. The one you just made up?

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?

NO, since the plants GREW on the 3rd Day. Genesis 1:12 no matter how confusing you try to make it.

Aman:>>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.
​

Assyrian:>>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?

Aman:>>Sure it does. It was the SAME day the Earth was made.

Have you noticed that you can't seem to get anyone to answer your questions. It's about all you have to post. Do you think it could be happening because of your own obvious confusion?
​

Assyrian:>>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?

That would be the 3rd Day, the Day Genesis 1:9-10 tells us the Earth was made.

Assyrian:>>The first day? Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Not possible since the earth was without form and void or empty. It was brought forth until the 3rd Day, exactly as Gen. 1:9-10 shows.

Assyrian:>>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.

NO. That would be the 2nd Day when Jesus made the first Heaven, or firmament. The Earth was inside the first firmament for the firmament protected it from the water into which it existed. You are getting more and more confused.

Assyrian:>>The third day, when Gen 1:10 God called the dry land Earth?

Congratulations. Did you notice the word earth was Capitalized? Earth?

Assyrian:>>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.

The first Earth, the one which was totally destroyed in the Flood, the world of Adam, did not make it past the 6th Day. Genesis 2:1 is speaking of the THIRD Heaven. The word finished shows that God has brought His creation to perfection, and finished His work, and ALL of the host of His heavens and earth are already there. It's PROPHECY of our future at the end of the present 6th Day.

Aman:>>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:>>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

Aman:>>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.
​

Assyrian:>>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.

Sounds to me like you are trying to confuse the issue in a vain attempt to explain your Theistic Evolution beliefs. You can't get that foolishness to line up with God's Truth simply because it's man's flawed religion and NOT God's Truth.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Assyrian]

Post 102

Dear Assyrian, You would be correct if the events happened in English, but not if the events took place in Hebrew, which they did. In Hebrew, formed, is to shape, and to "created" the word "bara", and that happens only if the Trinity agrees, and it's always an Eternal Creation. God "creates" 3 times in Genesis 1, which is the outline of all of the rest of the Bible.God creates the air and ground before the first Day. Gen 1:1-3
God creates every living creature from the water on the 5th Day. Gen. 1:21
God creates mankind "in His Image" on the 6th Creative Day, Today. Gen. 1:27

You have already admitted that everything that exists has been created. 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. That mean that whether Genesis uses 'created', 'made', or 'formed' to describe things being made, they are all created by God. Why do you keep arguing about this?

I just did. Thanks for reminding me though.

OK

Assyrian:>>Genesis 2 doesn't say the L[FONT=&quot]ORD[/FONT] formed Adam it says the L[FONT=&quot]ORD[/FONT] God formed him, Yahweh Elohim. How is that not God the Trinity?

God the Trinity is Elohim, the invisible Spirit. YHWH/Jesus is the physical manistation of God, the Image or physical incarnation of the Trinity. Jesus made Adam physiclally, and Adam sinned, and was lost, but Adam believed in Jesus, and was born again Spiritually on the 6th Day. Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 5:1-2 He and Eve were born Spiritually. They both were lost, and then both were "created in God's Image", thanks to their faith in Jesus, which is a gift from God.

You haven't addressed that fact Genesis 2 talk about Yahweh Elohim, the L[FONT=&quot]ORD[/FONT] God.

Assyrian:>>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.

That confirms what I have been telling you. Jesus did NOT create Adam, You can only be "created" by the agreement of Elohim, the Trinity.

Please answer: how is Yahweh Elohim not the Trinity?

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

I note that you did not disagree with any of the verses I posted. Does that mean you are agreeing or just ignoring?

I had already addressed 1Cor 15, there was no point in dealing with it in two different places. I was going to see what you response was Unfortunately, when you got to the part where I discussed 1Cor 15, you didn't bother addressing any of my points.

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

I NEVER have said that. It's called a Strawman. Genesis 2:4-7 says Adam was "formed" on the Day the earth was made and BEFORE the plants grew, but you don't like to discuss that since it destroys the view you are pushing.

You have said:

Jesus formed Adam on the 3rd Day, (Genesis 2:4-7)
Here are the verses which show that the first man was formed on the 3rd Day.
Jesus, the Singular name of God formed Adam on the 3rd Day. Genesis
Adam was formed the 3rd Day and Eve was NOT formed until the 6th Day.
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
No. Scripture shows conclusively that man was formed from the dust on the 3rd Day
​

Where is the straw man in what I said? And where does Genesis 2 say Adam was formed on the third day?

Assyrian:>>So God had to make birds twice?

No. God (Elohim) made them from the water to be like the ones Jesus made from the dust of the ground on the next day. IOW, God "created" them to be compatible with the one's Jesus made with His Own Hands, much later. That's cool. Science hasn't noticed that even today.

Since Jesus is God and God made all things through Jesus, God made birds twice. If your attempt at combining the two creation accounts has birds being made twice, your interpretation is suffering from double vision.

Jesus made them on the 6th Day, and God approved and "created" them Eternally, from the water, on the 5th Day. Sounds like fun to me. To be able to see the end from the beginning is really useful.

Birds are eternal? What about whales and trout?

Assyrian:>>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.

I agree, but it was God who "created" of which Jesus is the Son, so when God the Trinity creates, it is with the Agreement of the Son, but it is NOT the Son forming and NOT creating, as He did Adam, the beasts of the field and the birds, He made from the dust of the ground. God (Elohim) created them Eternally.

Everything in Genesis in Genesis 2 is formed by the L[FONT=&quot]ORD[/FONT] God Yahweh Elohim, how is that not God making them? Even if you say it was Christ who formed them, Colossians tells us God created everything that exists through Christ. If they exist because Christ formed them, the fact they exist means God created them through Christ. There is no basis for the distinction you are trying to make between being formed by the L[FONT=&quot]ORD[/FONT] God in Genesis 2 and being created or made by God in Genesis 1

That's WHY I say that prehistoric man was not Human. The descendants of Adam are humans. The sons of God (Prehistoric people) were created and brought forth from the water, on the 5th Day, along with every other living creature that moves. Genesis 1:21 Science has learned the same thing. Our cells cannot live without water.

Surprising they could reproduce together, not only completely different species, but Adam's species didn't even have a water based cell structure.

Adam was made Billions of years BEFORE our Solar System was formed, which was 8 Billion years AFTER the Big Bang of our Cosmos, so prehistoric man, on our Planet, is a fairly late arrival. Noah arrived AFTER prehistoric man diverged from Chimps 6 Million years ago. Noah arrived 10k years ago.

Continued..........

This really is getting into the realms of science fiction


post 103

Dear Assyrian, Here's the verse:

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.

Are you trying to say that ALL birds were after his kind, thus eliminating all but one specie of bird? His kind is the manner in whch Jesus made them. They are His kind.

The answer is in the word 'every'. You can talk of a large group using the singular or the plural depending on whether you use 'all' or 'every'.

All the men have their coats.
Every man has his coat.

In the second sentence was there only one coat? Or were there loads of coats with each man have his own coat?

Assyrian: A 5 paragraph explanation of the Hebrew pronoun agreement in 'his kind'.

Aman: silence

If you cannot address
who the Hebrew tells us 'his' in his kind refers to, that it refers back to the animals just mentioned in the sentence, each winged bird according to his kind, will you stop trying to write it 'His kind' and claiming it refers to Christ?

I'm the one who posted that David said The Lord said to my Lord. Do you always jump around and answer only what you disagree with?

Did David speak Hebrew or Greek? Did the Hebrew have one name or two? Instead of accusing me of jumping around, why not check what I said?

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?

Aman:>>Good question...

If it is a good question why not answer it?

is a good question? I'm beginning to suspect that one way to disagree is to jump around and try to confuse the readers into thinking you know what you're talking about.

I'm not the one jumping around. I ask you a question, you talk about something else, and I keep pulling you back to the issues you can't address.

 

[Assyrian]

post 104

Assyrian:>>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.

That's the point. The plants GREW on the 3rd Day, the SAME Day man was formed of the dust of the ground.

It certainly isn't addressing my point, in fact you have never been able to address this gaping hole in your interpretation.

Religion teaches that man was made the 6th Day, but that is UnScriptural.

Gen 1:23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day...
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them...
31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Assyrian:>>How does that address the question?

Which question. The one you just made up?

The question in red below here.

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?

NO, since the plants GREW on the 3rd Day. Genesis 1:12 no matter how confusing you try to make it.

If a lack of rain was the reason there were no plants in Genesis 2 but it wasn't the reason there were no plants in Genesis 1 when the land was separated from the water, how can these two descriptions refer to the same thing? The worlds described opn Day 3 and in Gnesis 2 are completely different.

Have you noticed that you can't seem to get anyone to answer your questions. It's about all you have to post. Do you think it could be happening because of your own obvious confusion?

My questions are easy enough to answer, it is just that people I ask don't like the answer, I like to ask questions whose answer tears a hole in their view. They don't like the obvious answer, so they try to change the subject. You actually need a reasonable understanding of the other position to ask questions like that. If you remember, when I was confused about your ideas about birds, when I though you meant the day five creation of birds was spiritual rather than bodily, or prophetic rather than the first of two occasions birds were made, then my questions were easily addressed. Questions that come from a place of confusion and misunderstanding can always be addressed. It is questions that expose the very real problems in a position that can't be answered without admitting the position is wrong.

Assyrian:>>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?

That would be the 3rd Day, the Day Genesis 1:9-10 tells us the Earth was made.

Assyrian:>>The first day? Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Not possible since the earth was without form and void or empty. It was brought forth until the 3rd Day, exactly as Gen. 1:9-10 shows.

Assyrian:>>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.

NO. That would be the 2nd Day when Jesus made the first Heaven, or firmament. The Earth was inside the first firmament for the firmament protected it from the water into which it existed. You are getting more and more confused.

Assyrian:>>The third day, when Gen 1:10 God called the dry land Earth?

Congratulations. Did you notice the word earth was Capitalized? Earth?

It is capitalised because it is a name, it is the same Hebrew word erets, earth, we read of being created on Day 1 with no capitalisation in either verse. The bigger problem with identifying Gen 2:4 as the third day is that there is no mention of the heavens being created then. Gen 2:4 in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

Assyrian:>>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.

The first Earth, the one which was totally destroyed in the Flood, the world of Adam, did not make it past the 6th Day. Genesis 2:1 is speaking of the THIRD Heaven. The word finished shows that God has brought His creation to perfection, and finished His work, and ALL of the host of His heavens and earth are already there. It's PROPHECY of our future at the end of the present 6th Day.

Whether you treat Gen 2:1 as prophetic or not, it describes all of Genesis 1 as God creating the heavens and the earth. No single day in Genesis 1 fits the description Gen 2:4 in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. Some days describe God creating the earth different days describe him working on the heavens. The only day that mention both is the first day Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, which doesn't work as you point out. The only possibility for Gen 2:4 in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, is that 'day' refers to the whole period of creation. Which should be less of a problem to you when you are already into your own form of the Day Age interpretation saying "God's Days or Ages are some 4.5 Billion years in length"

Sounds to me like you are trying to confuse the issue in a vain attempt to explain your Theistic Evolution beliefs. You can't get that foolishness to line up with God's Truth simply because it's man's flawed religion and NOT God's Truth.

Believe that if you want, I have shown you from scripture that you interpretation is wrong and you haven't been able to answer me.

Assyrian

 

[Calminian]

post 104

It certainly isn't addressing my point, in fact you have never been able to address this gaping hole in your interpretation.

Gen 1:23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day...
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them...
31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

The question in red below here.

If a lack of rain was the reason there were no plants in Genesis 2 but it wasn't the reason there were no plants in Genesis 1 when the land was separated from the water, how can these two descriptions refer to the same thing? The worlds described opn Day 3 and in Gnesis 2 are completely different.

My questions are easy enough to answer, it is just that people I ask don't like the answer, I like to ask questions whose answer tears a hole in their view. They don't like the obvious answer, so they try to change the subject. You actually need a reasonable understanding of the other position to ask questions like that. If you remember, when I was confused about your ideas about birds, when I though you meant the day five creation of birds was spiritual rather than bodily, or prophetic rather than the first of two occasions birds were made, then my questions were easily addressed. Questions that come from a place of confusion and misunderstanding can always be addressed. It is questions that expose the very real problems in a position that can't be answered without admitting the position is wrong.

It is capitalised because it is a name, it is the same Hebrew word erets, earth, we read of being created on Day 1 with no capitalisation in either verse. The bigger problem with identifying Gen 2:4 as the third day is that there is no mention of the heavens being created then. Gen 2:4 in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

Whether you treat Gen 2:1 as prophetic or not, it describes all of Genesis 1 as God creating the heavens and the earth. No single day in Genesis 1 fits the description Gen 2:4 in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. Some days describe God creating the earth different days describe him working on the heavens. The only day that mention both is the first day Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, which doesn't work as you point out. The only possibility for Gen 2:4 in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, is that 'day' refers to the whole period of creation. Which should be less of a problem to you when you are already into your own form of the Day Age interpretation saying "God's Days or Ages are some 4.5 Billion years in length"

Believe that if you want, I have shown you from scripture that you interpretation is wrong and you haven't been able to answer me.

Assyrian

It's an interesting conversations, guys. But I'm hoping maybe one of you could start a new thread? It's a bit off-topic, though certainly something that should be discussed. If you could start a new thread, I'd be interested in participating as well.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman

Originally Posted by Assyrian

Originally Posted by Aman

Originally Posted by Assyrian

Sigh. Did Day 3 start off with with the earth under water or not?

Dear Assyrian, No, since the earth hasn't entered the picture, yet.

Assyrian:>> 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?

Because God said:
8 And God called the firmament Heaven

The first firmament or first heaven (Singular) you called it heavenS (Plural), but there was but ONE first heaven.

God:>>And the evening and the morning were the second day.
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.

Remember that God is speaking of the "firmament", or the boundary of the first heaven. After God made it, He put it in the midst or middle of the water. Genesis 1:7

God:>>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 Seas made a roaring sound when they were brought inside the first firmament. The water was taken from the water into which the first firmament was placed. It made a noise and God called that roaring Seas. Scripture does not show anything about ground at this point.




​

Aman:>>Good question...
​

If it is a good question why not answer it?
​

is a good question? I'm beginning to suspect that one way to disagree is to jump around and try to confuse the readers into thinking you know what you're talking about.
​

Assyrian:>>I'm not the one jumping around. I ask you a question, you talk about something else, and I keep pulling you back to the issues you can't address.

Not so. You set up Strawmen all over the place, and then edit the debate to favor your views and to confuse others. Then you return and accuse your opponant of not answering the questions which no one knows but you. You're tricky, cunning, and never lose since you have no positions. Is your name Mitt Romney? or are you just a devoted follower of old Mitt? Get thee behind me.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Assyrian

post 104

It certainly isn't addressing my point, in fact you have never been able to address this gaping hole in your interpretation.

Gen 1:23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day...

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them...
31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

The question in red below here.

If a lack of rain was the reason there were no plants in Genesis 2 but it wasn't the reason there were no plants in Genesis 1 when the land was separated from the water, how can these two descriptions refer to the same thing? The worlds described opn Day 3 and in Gnesis 2 are completely different.

Dear Assyrian, The plants in Genesis 1 are the plants on Adam's world. The plants in Genesis 2 are exactly the SAME plants. Genesis 2 is "adding" information about man being made on the the 3rd Day after the earth was made but BEFORE Adam was made.

Assyrian:>>My questions are easy enough to answer, it is just that people I ask don't like the answer, I like to ask questions whose answer tears a hole in their view. They don't like the obvious answer, so they try to change the subject. You actually need a reasonable understanding of the other position to ask questions like that. If you remember, when I was confused about your ideas about birds, when I though you meant the day five creation of birds was spiritual rather than bodily, or prophetic rather than the first of two occasions birds were made, then my questions were easily addressed. Questions that come from a place of confusion and misunderstanding can always be addressed. It is questions that expose the very real problems in a position that can't be answered without admitting the position is wrong.

The plants of Genesis 1 and 2 are the SAME plants.

***************

Assyrian:>>It is capitalised because it is a name, it is the same Hebrew word erets, earth, we read of being created on Day 1 with no capitalisation in either verse. The bigger problem with identifying Gen 2:4 as the third day is that there is no mention of the heavens being created then. Gen 2:4 in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

Whether you treat Gen 2:1 as prophetic or not, it describes all of Genesis 1 as God creating the heavens and the earth. No single day in Genesis 1 fits the description Gen 2:4 in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. Some days describe God creating the earth different days describe him working on the heavens. The only day that mention both is the first day Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, which doesn't work as you point out. The only possibility for Gen 2:4 in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, is that 'day' refers to the whole period of creation. Which should be less of a problem to you when you are already into your own form of the Day Age interpretation saying "God's Days or Ages are some 4.5 Billion years in length"

True, but Genesis 2:4 is speaking of the 3rd Day, the SAME Day the Earth was made. It was the 3rd Day, after the earth was made but before the plants grew. Genesis 1:9-12

Assyrian:>>Believe that if you want, I have shown you from scripture that you interpretation is wrong and you haven't been able to answer me.

Read Genesis 1:9-12 and you will see that Genesis 2:4-5 is speaking of the THIRD Day. That is the day the Earth was made, (Gen 1:9-10) man was made (Gen 2:4-7) AND the plants grew. Gen. 1:12 and Gen 2:5

Assyrian
​

It's an interesting conversations, guys. But I'm hoping maybe one of you could start a new thread? It's a bit off-topic, though certainly something that should be discussed. If you could start a new thread, I'd be interested in participating as well.

Thank you Assyrian. It's hard to understand something which you have believed a long time and then are shown a different way to see it. I hope the above helps. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Calminian]

Aw, come on guys. All interesting stuff, but you're hijacking my poor thread.

Any chance one of you might take this to a new home?

 

[Assyrian]

Thank you Assyrian. It's hard to understand something which you have believed a long time and then are shown a different way to see it. I hope the above helps. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

I'll see you in a new thread if you want to start one.
Assyrian

Sorry Cal

 

[Calminian]

I'll see you in a new thread if you want to start one.
Assyrian

Sorry Cal

No prob. Rabbit trails happen!

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Assyrian

I'll see you in a new thread if you want to start one.
Assyrian

Sorry Cal
​

Cal:>>No prob. Rabbit trails happen!

Dear Friends, Thanks. Go to Man made 3rd Day thread I just started.

In Love,
Aman