YECs, why do you do it?

[iambeeman]

It doesn't say that God made them at the exact same moment does it? It doesn't say Adam was "lonely" is says "alone" does it not? Also Adam wasn't actually alone, all the animals where there, not to mention God as well, maybe there's something else to this?

 

[Assyrian]

But they where made on the same day, at the very least it doesn't say otherwise, does it?

Gen 1:21 So God created ... every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

 

[Assyrian]

There is only one sequence of creation, Chapter 1. Chapter 2 is simply a general reiteration, this is clear from verse 8...

"The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed."

That is a reference back to the previous verse
Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Chapter 2 is not meant to contradict, but compliment chapter 1.
Verse 19...
Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.

Does this contradict chapter 1? No. We are simply told the Lord is responsible for the forming of the beasts of the field and the birds of the air, and it is not that it took place at that specific point in chapter 2, but that it took place in the same timing and fashion as chapter 1 reveals.

The verbs give us the sequence in Gen 2, God creates the man, places him in the garden, commands him to leave the fruit alone, says he will make him a helper, makes the animals.

For example, let's say I elaborate a plan with several steps, A-F. I first lay out the chronology in the order I will accomplish the said hypothetical plan, starting with A and ending with F. This is the established truth. But I can very well reiterate my plan in a different order, say D-B-C-A-F-E. Does this mean I have two different plans?

If I could remind you what you said:

It is humorous how you seem to treat them like some sort of baffling enigma needing to be figured out. It really is not that complicated​

You are now rearranging the whole structure of the narrative in Genesis 2 to make it fit your literal interpretation of Genesis 1. Creationists go to really convoluted lengths to fit the two creation accounts together. But whether you take Genesis 2 literally or as a parable, it is still a narrative, and the story gives you the order of events. You wouldn't rearrange the order of event in the Prodigal Son would you? The son comes home and then asks for his inheritance, or brings the pigs along to chat with the fatted calf. There is nothing in Genesis 2 to suggest it is simply a To Do list God ticked off in a completely unrelated order.

 

[iambeeman]

Gen 1:21 So God created ... every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

From Gen 1:1 - Gen 2:4.4, where is that taking place?

From Gen 2:4.5 to the end of the chapter, where is that taking place? Isn't it rather specific?

By my reading, Adam and Eve where created on day 6 is that not right?

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

That is a reference back to the previous verse
Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.

The verbs give us the sequence in Gen 2, God creates the man, places him in the garden, commands him to leave the fruit alone, says he will make him a helper, makes the animals.


If I could remind you what you said:

It is humorous how you seem to treat them like some sort of baffling enigma needing to be figured out. It really is not that complicated
​

You are now rearranging the whole structure of the narrative in Genesis 2 to make it fit your literal interpretation of Genesis 1. Creationists go to really convoluted lengths to fit the two creation accounts together.

If being a creationist involves refusing to write genesis off as a fanciful myth without a shred of historical truth in its entirety, then I'll glady take this label, despite the fact I do not associate myself with what are formally known to be "creationist proponents" nowadays. I'd think we'd understand the Bible does not contradict itself, and as much as chapter 1 goes to great lengths to give details on a actual seqeuntial order of events, as I said previously, chapter two would simply be a reiteration meant to serve as an allegorical compliment. I go to great lengths to properly reconcile and understand the scriptures, I am not close minded nor a rigid literalist.

But whether you take Genesis 2 literally or as a parable, it is still a narrative, and the story gives you the order of events.You wouldn't rearrange the order of event in the Prodigal Son would you? The son comes home and then asks for his inheritance, or brings the pigs along to chat with the fatted calf. There is nothing in Genesis 2 to suggest it is simply a To Do list God ticked off in a completely unrelated order.

Except that I'm not arguing it is simply a To Do List

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm wondering why the YEC view is so important to those who believe it. To help me understand better I have two specific questions for you.

What does your view bring to the table that Christians with a figurative understanding are missing?

Do you think that, because of your YEC view, your walk with God is somehow different than those who have a figurative understanding of the creation account? (If so, how?)

I have two words for you, redemptive history. How much and why you take the Bible figuratively makes a very big difference. When the Scriptures tell us that we are a new creature in Christ, that Christ is returning in the same manner in which he ascended, that God will recreate the heavens and the earth, it matters whether or not you take that literally.

I makes a difference when I pray whether I believe God will answer my prayer figurative or literally.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

If being a creationist involves refusing to write genesis off as a fanciful myth without a shred of historical truth in its entirety, then I'll glady take this label,

Unfortunately that means approaching Genesis with preconceived ideas of what it has to say and forcing the text to fit rather than letting God's word speak for itself. Our Lord and Saviour had much less problems with the idea of teaching through stories than you seem to, and I do not think describes the parables as made up stories it is writing them off.

despite the fact I do not associate myself with what are formally known to be "creationist proponents" nowadays.

The term comes from a Creationist textbook, unfortunately more famous for its evolution into an ID textbook and the term "creationist proponents" mutating into "Cdesign Proponentsists". Anyway, if you don't see yourself as a creationist proponent, where do you see yourself?

I'd think we'd understand the Bible does not contradict itself, and as much as chapter 1 goes to great lengths to give details on a actual seqeuntial order of events, as I said previously, chapter two would simply be a reiteration meant to serve as an allegorical compliment. I go to great lengths to properly reconcile and understand the scriptures, I am not close minded nor a rigid literalist.

You seem to be putting a lot of thought into understanding these chapters, which is odd the way you describe TEs treating Genesis as "some sort of baffling enigma needing to be figured out." Don't get me wrong. I think it is great you are wrestling with these passages. Is it possible you have bought into some creationist anti TE rhetoric that doesn't quite fit where you are at yourself?

I agree the bible does not contradict itself. But contradictions can arise if we misunderstand what it is saying and misinterpret the text. I think these contradiction are really important because they show us where we are misinterpreting the text. Unfortunately the more common reaction is insist on our interpretation and force the text to fit. This is what literalist creationists do with the creation accounts in Genesis 1&2 both must be literal, and since the bible cannot contradict itself, they force Genesis 2 to fit the order of Genesis 1. Of course they don't contradict each other. But if you take the two of them literally, and you take the plain text at face value they do contradict. The simple answer is we are not meant to take them literally, either one, or both of the chapters are not meant as literal history. As you seem to realise yourself.

Of course if one of the chapters is allegorical, it does raise the question whether the other has to be literal. That said I started of as a TE with a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, I just realised it didn't actually say the world was created in six days

Don't get caught up in the word myth, I don't actually like the word myself, as it can be understood as 'a silly story people used to believe', but that is not the technical meaning of myth which is closer (ish) to the concept of allegory a story teaching deep truths rather than being intended as literal history. If you come across TEs talking of Genesis as myth, that is the sense they meant it in rather than silly stories.

Except that I'm not arguing it is simply a To Do List

Allegory is good

 

[Assyrian]

From Gen 1:1 - Gen 2:4.4, where is that taking place?

From Gen 2:4.5 to the end of the chapter, where is that taking place? Isn't it rather specific?

Genesis 1 describes the earth, while Genesis 2 talks about the whole of the known world from Cush to Assyria.

By my reading, Adam and Eve where created on day 6 is that not right?

In the first creation account anyway. We are not give a day in the second creation account, though Adam was created before all the birds of the heavens which were created on day five in Genesis 1. You can't really talk about what day Adam was created on in Genesis 2 when it has a completely different order of events to Genesis 1.

 

[iambeeman]

So then Gen 1 is describing what God did in the world as a whole, and Gen 2 is describing the events in the garden specifically. Is it not possible that God is describing exactly what he did in the world as a whole AND what he did in the garden specifically? Not as a contrary account but an isolated place for Adams benefit (as in Adam actually got to witness the miracle of the creation of the various animals)?

 

[Mallon]

So then Gen 1 is describing what God did in the world as a whole, and Gen 2 is describing the events in the garden specifically. Is it not possible that God is describing exactly what he did in the world as a whole AND what he did in the garden specifically?

That argument still doesn't work because, according to Gen 1, all birds (for example) were created before man, and in Gen 2, all birds were created after man. One account cannot simply be an elaboration of the other because they are in contradiction.
The only other option is that Genesis was not written to retell history.

 

[iambeeman]

So it is completely impossible that God gave a general overview of the order of creation in Gen 1, then (Gen 2) gives us a elaboration on one specific place during one specific day for the benefit on the one and only man, (not to say that the rest of the world wasn't filled in the exact way described in Gen 1) for that mans benefit? Would it not demonstrate to Adam who exactly is responsible for all of what Adam saw around him? Would it not have made logistical sense for God to have made only a minimum of one (more if God was in the mood but only one is necessary) of all the animals including the birds in front of Adam for him to name?

P.S. After re-reading those 2 chapters again, and recalling from my Bible school days, I remembered that the chapter verse distinctions weren't part of the original text. I may be wrong but, I don't think that there are 2 creation accounts simply one and they should be read as a single account.

 

[σύνδουλόν]

I'm wondering why the YEC view is so important to those who believe it. To help me understand better I have two specific questions for you.

What does your view bring to the table that Christians with a figurative understanding are missing?

Do you think that, because of your YEC view, your walk with God is somehow different than those who have a figurative understanding of the creation account? (If so, how?)

It is important because it is what God has said happened, the Bible clearly details that the world was spoken into existence in six literal standard consecutive days.

It is a question of the deepest faith, please see Hebrews 11:3.

To doubt God in His word and come up with some other unreal event, and say, "No God, this is how it really happened, this is how it was really done, we know better." is to then call Him a liar and it also does more than this, it creates a lie for us to live in, a cruel denial of what is. What would we call someone who does not accept what is true, but rather buries themselves in such fantasy?

This question of origin affects everything, there is nothing it does not touch.

 

[philadiddle]

It is important because it is what God has said happened, the Bible clearly details that the world was spoken into existence in six literal standard consecutive days.

It is a question of the deepest faith, please see Hebrews 11:3.

To doubt God in His word and come up with some other unreal event, and say, "No God, this is how it really happened, this is how it was really done, we know better." is to then call Him a liar and it also does more than this, it creates a lie for us to live in, a cruel denial of what is. What would we call someone who does not accept what is true, but rather buries themselves in such fantasy?

This question of origin affects everything, there is nothing it does not touch.

You're basically telling me and everyone else who knows the age of the earth that the bible is completely wrong about everything. Are you sure you want to take that approach?

 

[Kaitlin08]

When I was a young earth creationist, once upon a time, the truth of the Genesis story mattered to me because I thought it was tied to the truth of the Gospel story, and because if it was false, that threatened my belief in inerrancy. I especially believed in the importance of inerrancy for some reason; probably I was afraid to do the hard work of thinking about the truth value of the Bible verse by verse. Everyone wants something to believe in, and a belief that the Bible can't possibly be wrong under any circumstances is a naive way to protect that wish for absolute trustworthiness.