Gen 1 in a vacuum

[DamianWarS]

When we read Gen 1 creation account we see 3 days of God separating, 3 days of God creating and 1 day of God resting. The creating days start on day 4 starting with the celestial objects, the birds and marine life then finally land creatures concluding with man. All these living creatures are in the singular in Hebrew yet they are all translated as not as a simple male and female pairing or a single specimen but mass nouns.

Then comes man. Some translations say "humans" some say "mankind". The Hebrew is "adam" but like all Hebrew names they are first Hebrew words with real meanings and "adam" is the word for mankind. So why in v26 do we assume male and female only (or just 1 man) but in the rest of the entries we assume mass nouns (birds, fish, animals etc..)? If Gen 1 was looked at in isolation when God creates man he creates an entire species that populate the world which would be the most consistent in the context.

Gen 1 opens in 1:1 and it closes in Gen 2:1-3. These are bookends to the creation account then starts a new account opening with a different focus in v4. Gen 1:1 says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." and Gen 2:4 flips the focus saying "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." it opens with "heavens and the earth" and closes with "earth and the heavens" which may suggest Gen 1 has more of downward perspective and Gen 2 may be more of an upward perspective which is a common tension in scripture (ie. was Pharaoh's heart hardened or did he harden it himself...? scripture says both). This points to Gen 1's creation as a separate account from Gen 2's creation which would make sense with the inconsistencies the two present such as the order of creation or the different word used for "God" when juxtaposed together.

So according to Gen 1 should "adam" be a mass noun as it is commonly translated such as "humankind" or should it be in strict singular form going against the rest of the creation account?

 

[GospelS]

There are different types of birds, animals, insects and sea creatures. God made each according to their kind, male and female. They multiplied. But from one man came all humans. Example: Humans are not different from each other as peacocks are different from parrots.
Acts 17:26 And God made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth.
Philippians 2:6-8 because we are all descendants of Adam
Romans 5:12 by one man sin entered into the world, and so death passed upon all men

Genesis 1:11 ....yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind
12 ....vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind.
21 ......sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.
22 And God blessed them, saying, be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.
24 .....living creatures according to their kinds livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.”
25 ....beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind.
Genesis 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female.

 

[Sabertooth]

Most of Genesis 1:26-29 can be treated as humankind, en masse, but vv. 28-29 are specifically directed at the first couple.

 

[Ken Rank]

When we read Gen 1 creation account we see 3 days of God separating, 3 days of God creating and 1 day of God resting. The creating days start on day 4 starting with the celestial objects, the birds and marine life then finally land creatures concluding with man. All these living creatures are in the singular in Hebrew yet they are all translated as not as a simple male and female pairing or a single specimen but mass nouns.

Then comes man. Some translations say "humans" some say "mankind". The Hebrew is "adam" but like all Hebrew names they are first Hebrew words with real meanings and "adam" is the word for mankind. So why in v26 do we assume male and female only (or just 1 man) but in the rest of the entries we assume mass nouns (birds, fish, animals etc..)? If Gen 1 was looked at in isolation when God creates man he creates an entire species that populate the world which would be the most consistent in the context.

Gen 1 opens in 1:1 and it closes in Gen 2:1-3. These are bookends to the creation account then starts a new account opening with a different focus in v4. Gen 1:1 says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." and Gen 2:4 flips the focus saying "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." it opens with "heavens and the earth" and closes with "earth and the heavens" which may suggest Gen 1 has more of downward perspective and Gen 2 may be more of an upward perspective which is a common tension in scripture (ie. was Pharaoh's heart hardened or did he harden it himself...? scripture says both). This points to Gen 1's creation as a separate account from Gen 2's creation which would make sense with the inconsistencies the two present such as the order of creation or the different word used for "God" when juxtaposed together.

So according to Gen 1 should "adam" be a mass noun as it is commonly translated such as "humankind" or should it be in strict singular form going against the rest of the creation account?

Genesis 1 is intended to be an overview, the details begin in chapter 2. It is kind of like, "Here is what happened" followed by "here is how it happened." But even then, God doesn't fill in all blanks. But, if you read those chapters from that perspective, you'll find it takes the weight off having to reconcile chapters 1 and 2.

 

[d taylor]

And He has made from one man(blood) every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,

 

[DamianWarS]

Genesis 1 is intended to be an overview, the details begin in chapter 2. It is kind of like, "Here is what happened" followed by "here is how it happened." But even then, God doesn't fill in all blanks. But, if you read those chapters from that perspective, you'll find it takes the weight off having to reconcile chapters 1 and 2.

the two accounts conflict with each other, specifically with the order of things created, but they also differ in the word they use for God plus Gen 1 opens-closes, then Gen 2 opens with another account. This doesn't speak to one macro and the other micro, it speaks to two contrasting accounts.

 

[Ken Rank]

the two accounts conflict with each other, specifically with the order of things created, but they also differ in the word they use for God plus Gen 1 opens-closes, then Gen 2 opens with another account. This doesn't speak to one macro and the other micro, it speaks to two contrasting accounts.

No they don't... one is an overview and one is specific. Man and women are "Adam" in the sense that they are human. Words have more than one meaning... and the only time we REALLY have issues is when we insist a word only has one meaning.

 

[DamianWarS]

Most of Genesis 1:26-29 can be treated as humankind, en masse, but vv. 28-29 are specifically directed at the first couple.

its not the first time God says "be fruitful and multiply". He said it on the fifth day to the birds and fish too. I'm really not sure how 28/29 are unique to a couple and they seem just as easily applied to a mass noun.

 

[Sabertooth]

the two accounts conflict with each other, specifically with the order of things created, but they also differ in the word they use for God plus Gen 1 opens-closes, then Gen 2 opens with another account. This doesn't speak to one macro and the other micro, it speaks to two contrasting accounts.

They don't have to be in conflict.

 

[DamianWarS]

No they don't... one is an overview and one is specific. Man and women are "Adam" in the sense that they are human. Words have more than one meaning... and the only time we REALLY have issues is when we insist a word only has one meaning.

but they do differ in the order of creation.

Gen 1: light→water→land→celestials→fish/birds→animals/mankind.
Gen 2: man→plants→woman→animals

the order for creation in Gen 2 I'll admit is more fluid and seems less intentional however Gen 1 has plants in full seed/fruit before man which conflicts the reading of Gen 2. I'm not sure who told you one is an overview and one is specific because the text doesn't actually tell us that.

Gen 1: "Elohim" for God
Gen 2: "Yahweh" for God

Gen 2:3 says "Then God blessed the seventh day..." God is Elohim here. The very next verse 2:4 there is a switch and Yahweh is used. "...when the Lᴏʀᴅ God made the earth and the heavens." The "Lᴏʀᴅ" part is Yahweh and "God" is Elohim.

Gen 1:1 "God created the heavens and the earth..."
Gen 2:4 "when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens"

there is a switch of heavens/earth between the two accounts. plus although v4 opens with "create" (BARA) the same word used in Gen 1 accounts repeatedly it stops using it and begins to use more interactive words like tilling the soil, sending rain and forming out of dust.

there's a lot of stuff that differs suggesting differnt athorship/influence or at at the very least the same account but different perspectives (Gen 2 from a human perspective), but the major conflict is still the order.

 

[d taylor]

but they do differ in the order of creation.

Gen 1: light→water→land→celestials→fish/birds→animals/mankind.
Gen 2: man→plants→woman→animals

the order for creation in Gen 2 I'll admit is more fluid and seems less intentional however Gen 1 has plants in full seed/fruit before man which conflicts the reading of Gen 2. I'm not sure who told you one is an overview and one is specific because the text doesn't actually tell us that.

Gen 1: "Elohim" for God
Gen 2: "Yahweh" for God

Gen 2:3 says "Then God blessed the seventh day..." God is Elohim here. The very next verse 2:4 there is a switch and Yahweh is used. "...when the Lᴏʀᴅ God made the earth and the heavens." The "Lᴏʀᴅ" part is Yahweh and "God" is Elohim.

Gen 1:1 "God created the heavens and the earth..."
Gen 2:4 "when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens"

there is a switch of heavens/earth between the two accounts. plus although v4 opens with "create" (BARA) the same word used in Gen 1 accounts repeatedly it stops using it and begins to use more interactive words like tilling the soil, sending rain and forming out of dust.

there's a lot of stuff that differs suggesting differnt athorship/influence or at at the very least the same account but different perspectives (Gen 2 from a human perspective), but the major conflict is still the order.

If you can not believe the creation account as given in the Bible. Why not take up the religion of pagan science.
Or do you just want Christianity for the salvation from hell part and the rest of the Bible can take a hike.

 

[DamianWarS]

They don't have to be in conflict.

but they are in conflict, specifically the order of creation.

we like to insert stuff in between the lines to reconcile the accounts but the text can't support this and there is no responsible way of figuring about what is not mentioned. We must treat the text like a non-literal account in that in a non-literal account no details outside of it are relevant or play any role in the account, (ie. was each day a million years... the text cannot support this and we must stick to what the text says)

If you accept it as a non-literal account or not isn't the point, what I'm saying is that in practice it should be treated the same as a non-literal account even if you see it as a literal account because in non-literal accounts every detail inside the account is very important and every detail not in the account doesn't matter. To maintain it's the true meaning we must maintain every detail in the account and not force reconcile them.

 

[Sabertooth]

but they do differ in the order of creation.

"Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up,..." NKJV

Genesis 2:5 doesn't say that plants weren't created, yet. In fact, the highlighted parts tell us that plants were present (just not yet visible).

 

[Ken Rank]

but they do differ in the order of creation.

Gen 1: light→water→land→celestials→fish/birds→animals/mankind.
Gen 2: man→plants→woman→animals

the order for creation in Gen 2 I'll admit is more fluid and seems less intentional however Gen 1 has plants in full seed/fruit before man which conflicts the reading of Gen 2. I'm not sure who told you one is an overview and one is specific because the text doesn't actually tell us that.

Gen 1: "Elohim" for God
Gen 2: "Yahweh" for God

Gen 2:3 says "Then God blessed the seventh day..." God is Elohim here. The very next verse 2:4 there is a switch and Yahweh is used. "...when the Lᴏʀᴅ God made the earth and the heavens." The "Lᴏʀᴅ" part is Yahweh and "God" is Elohim.

Gen 1:1 "God created the heavens and the earth..."
Gen 2:4 "when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens"

there is a switch of heavens/earth between the two accounts. plus although v4 opens with "create" (BARA) the same word used in Gen 1 accounts repeatedly it stops using it and begins to use more interactive words like tilling the soil, sending rain and forming out of dust.

there's a lot of stuff that differs suggesting differnt athorship/influence or at at the very least the same account but different perspectives (Gen 2 from a human perspective), but the major conflict is still the order.

I don't agree with you... Elohim and and YHWH are both titles (or a name) used for the Most High and switching back and forth is like me calling you Damian to start a sentence, buddy somewhere in the middle, and "man" at the end of the sentence and all three refer to you. We do that kind of thing, often, and don't think anything of it. God does it and it's a problem? I don't see it, Damian.

As far as the rest... Genesis 1:1 is specific in terms of what was made on each day but otherwise is an overview. In Genesis 2 God is recapping things.... it's like the introduction to a book and then chapter 1. Obviously Genesis 1:1 and 2:4 are the same single event.... overviewed in one chapter and mentioned again in another. No big deal.

You're thinking like a Westerner... and I don't mean that in any bad or condescending way. I am simply suggesting that you are trying to be precise when God isn't as exact on these things as we want to believe. I mean, there were (are) times when the new moon can be seen which marks the new month, but it hasn't gotten dark on the last day of the last month. And then we have two hemispheres.... in the north the calendar and the crops align. So when Passover comes the barley is ripe. But in the southern hemisphere, when the calendar says it is Passover the fall crops are or were harvested and winter is coming... destroying the picture in the crops God designed to be used to teach with.

My point is.... if I made the Ark that Noach did using my cubit and Anthony Davis (now of the Lakers) made the same boat using his cubit... the boats wouldn't be the same size and yet we would both have obeyed God properly. We look for things to be exact... God isn't exact and that doesn't mean He isn't perfect. In Genesis 1 He gives us a detailed overview of what happened each day. In chapter 2... He gets about the business of telling the story that is necessary to lead us to the work of Christ. It doesn't need to align to be correct here.

Blessings.
Ken

 

[DamianWarS]

If you can not believe the creation account as given in the Bible. Why not take up the religion of pagan science.
Or do you just want Christianity for the salvation from hell part and the rest of the Bible can take a hike.

who said anything about science? I never suggested to replace anything with a scienctfic view or claim that's what I hold. Is there something wrong with saying there is a conflict in the accounts? because there is (and it's in plain sight)

 

[DamianWarS]

"Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up,..." NKJV

Genesis 2:5 doesn't say that plants weren't created, yet. In fact, the highlighted parts tell us that plants were present (just not yet visible).

fish and birds need food to survive, for that matter, all of creation that relies on plants need plants and can't wait for rain or soil to be tilled in order to eat, some insect life cycles are too short for that to even be a possibility. Are you suggesting all of these creatures went hungry until plants started to sprout up? is that how you read what is described in the 3rd day? when it says on the 3rd day "The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds" I read it as inclusive to that part of creation that all plants produced seeds and fruit. This is the conflict with Gen 2 as the order is different.

 

[DamianWarS]

You're thinking like a Westerner... and I don't mean that in any bad or condescending way. I am simply suggesting that you are trying to be precise when God isn't as exact on these things as we want to believe.

I'm thinking like an Easterner. in eastern logic, things don't have to be exact as you seem to be aware but I'm not demanding them to be. The text presents 2 tellings of the same account and they have conflicts. There are not one after the other, they are parallel. Both have a focus and don't care about how it conflicts with the other because their goal is more important. And this is what you will find in eastern logic, the details in the accounts are somewhat fluid because their role is to build to the goal not to tell things exactly as they were.

The differences in the details like the names of God do not demand they are different but are suggestive of it as if these were two different accounts you would expect these sort of things to be different and if there were a continuation of each other you would expect a greater flow between the accounts. As it stands it seems to better agree with the former not the latter.

 

[d taylor]

This is the conflict with Gen 2 as the order is different.

There is no order in Genesis 2, you are bringing in the idea of an order from Genesis 1, where the order of creation is clearly listed.
If you believe it is, show in Genesis chapter 2 after any thing, Genesis 2 states God created, show where in Genesis 2 list a day after that creation like is done in Genesis 1

Being that God list in Genesis 1 what He made and then after that God states So the evening and the morning were the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth day.

 

[DamianWarS]

There is no order in Genesis 2, you are bringing in the idea of an order from Genesis 1, where the order of creation is clearly listed.
If you believe it is, show in Genesis chapter 2 after any thing, Genesis 2 states God created, show where in Genesis 2 list a day after that creation like is done in Genesis 1

Being that God list in Genesis 1 what He made and then after that God states So the evening and the morning were the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth day.

Which is why they would be different accounts using different information to build their points. Even if you do look at them as the same accounts there still is a problem. Gen 2 doesn't have plants sprouting before man and Gen 1 does.

 

[Ken Rank]

I'm thinking like an Easterner. in eastern logic, things don't have to be exact as you seem to be aware but I'm not demanding them to be. The text presents 2 tellings of the same account and they have conflicts. There are not one after the other, they are parallel. Both have a focus and don't care about how it conflicts with the other because their goal is more important. And this is what you will find in eastern logic, the details in the accounts are somewhat fluid because their role is to build to the goal not to tell things exactly as they were.

The differences in the details like the names of God do not demand they are different but are suggestive of it as if these were two different accounts you would expect these sort of things to be different and if there were a continuation of each other you would expect a greater flow between the accounts. As it stands it seems to better agree with that latter not the former.

I understand, I just don't agree. I do believe, by the way, that Genesis had multiple authors. But, the use of Elohim and YHWH doesn't bother me because we all do the same thing. Perhaps it's just clearer in the Hebrew? Anyway... be blessed.