Creation in six days, yet slow change and great limitation for everything now on earth...

[ReuleauxMan]

To better firmly hold a creationism standpoint, it is important to see there are two creation stories: one of heaven and Earth in Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 and one somewhere else on the first day of the first creation story, before life and other things were created in the heavens and Earth, in Genesis 2:4 - 4:26. Immediately after, the book of Genesis resumes with the conclusion of the first creation story, where Adam has been fruitful and multiplied and become many on earth.

So, on the first day of creation, in the beginning, God created the heaven and the Earth, where the Earth was without form and void. And here comes in the second creation story, which happened outside of the space and reality but within the timeframe of day one of creation. Humans were created by God (NOT stated here in the image and likeness of the (G)gods). The (G)gods were not limited like our sin-corrupted mortal bodies are now. They could do anything except usurp <edit>God's will</edit> with knowing good and evil but not sinning, and we could do anything so long as we did not yet know the knowledge of good and evil. There were generations of Adam within this second creation story, where everything was created and grew and evolved before it was brought forth within the rest of the timeframe of the first creation story in six days. By the time humans appeared on earth in the sixth day of creation, humans had already fallen in the first day of creation in the second creation story! Yet, God called everything that was created by day six, "Very Good" !!! And, where Genesis 5 starts, God still made humans in the image of (G)gods and the likeness of not (G)gods but of HIMSELF, DESPITE (or perhaps BECAUSE) THE FALL OF HUMANKIND AND CREATION HAVING ALREADY HAPPENED!!!!

Before sin entered into creation and messed things up (quite severely, especially over humanity's history), it is entirely plausible for each day to have brought forth perfect life very quickly, with genetic and form evolution happening within single lifespans within a day or days - the way things were intended by God - INSTEAD OF THIS REALLY-MESSED-UP FAR-FROM-PERFECT WORLD OF PAIN AND SUFFERING THAT HAS BEEN AROUND FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS. That is why there is pain and suffering and death and the problem of evil, and God Almighty has even SACRIFICED HIMSELF as Jesus Christ of the Holy Trinity to fix how really messed up sin makes things. The very fabric and nature of reality and our experience of life on earth has become severely distorted because of sin (that is why the punishment of eternal (everlasting?) destruction seems so severe - because the consequences of sin are EVEN WORSE - the Bible even says it is a choice by spirits wandering and having no place to go but the lake of fire!). Instead of progressing genetically and individually and as a civilization co-habiting with other life on earth like a rocket, there has been barely any change compared to that for thousands of years with tons of problems.

The times back then before the widespread wickedness of humans and the flood would have been very different from today - all those (G)gods still running around with all those powers, even if fallen - the Earth would be a *very* different place with things very different for the people, plants, and creatures living back then. Even after the flood the Bible reports Egyptians using magic (of the gods) forgotten to today to do "scientifically-impossible" things. We can't assume that the extremely physically-limited and confined nature of the way things are in life today was the way things were necessarily before, such that the way things are happening and being and progressing today were the way things were happening back then.

It seems by the time Jesus Christ was walking the Earth in His ministry, the way humans experienced reality <edit> may have been </edit> largely similar to the way we experience it today, <edit> except with less brainwashing from "Science (Limitation by beliefs of the self, beliefs of the nature of reality, and beliefs of who is the or even whether there exists the divine/God Almighty), Technology (Limitation by dependence upon other things to accomplish and in the process learn what one could otherwise do oneself), Engineering (Limitation by habits of doing, obscuring perception / mindlessness, and limiting creative thinking), and Math (Limitation by learning made difficult?, especially with respect to application of knowledge to one's life)" limiting our perspective and awareness of what we truly are as humans, what we are actually capable of as humans (especially with God's Spirit guiding us to be Christ-like), and the gravity of the situation we are in as fallen beings created in the image and likeness of God. Why are things so different today especially compared to times closer to the beginning of creation (of heaven and earth)?</edit> The knowledge is hidden, corrupted, and forgotten from the masses, knowledge that was innate in the purity of sinless creation; <edit>we are educated to be nothing but relatively unchanging, limited, frail to insult and force bio-chemical machines with ourselves and reality ruled purely by those electro-chemical reactions. With this paradigm I have formulated from the plainest and most presupposition-free, most-faithful-in-the-inerrency-of-the-scriptures reading I could yet do of the first chapters of Genesis, it seems to make more sense in to have creationism, perhaps a young earth, rather than millions and billions of years of slow, boring incremental evolutionary change .</edit>

Stay safe my brothers in Jesus Christ of the Holy Trinity. Strive for the narrow way that leads to life. Peace and love .

 

[Sheila Davis]

To better firmly hold a creationism standpoint, it is important to see there are two creation stories: one of heaven and Earth in Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 and one somewhere else on the first day of the first creation story, before life and other things were created in the heavens and Earth, in Genesis 2:4 - 4:26. Immediately after, the book of Genesis resumes with the conclusion of the first creation story, where Adam has been fruitful and multiplied and become many on earth.

So, on the first day of creation, in the beginning, God created the heaven and the Earth, where the Earth was without form and void. And here comes in the second creation story, which happened outside of the space and reality but within the timeframe of day one of creation. Humans were created by God (NOT stated here in the image and likeness of the (G)gods). The (G)gods were not limited like our sin-corrupted mortal bodies are now. They could do anything except usurp God with knowing good and evil but not sinning, and we could do anything so long as we did not yet know the knowledge of good and evil. There were generations of Adam within this second creation story, where everything was created and grew and evolved before it was brought forth within the rest of the timeframe of the first creation story in six days. By the time humans appeared on earth in the sixth day of creation, humans had already fallen in the first day of creation in the second creation story! Yet, God called everything that was created by day six, "Very Good" !!! And, where Genesis 5 starts, God still made humans in the image of (G)gods and the likeness of not (G)gods but of HIMSELF, DESPITE (or perhaps BECAUSE) THE FALL OF HUMANKIND AND CREATION HAVING ALREADY HAPPENED!!!!

Before sin entered into creation and messed things up (quite severely, especially over humanity's history), it is entirely plausible for each day to have brought forth perfect life very quickly, with genetic and form evolution happening within single lifespans within a day or days - the way things were intended by God - INSTEAD OF THIS REALLY-MESSED-UP FAR-FROM-PERFECT WORLD OF PAIN AND SUFFERING THAT HAS BEEN AROUND FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS. That is why there is pain and suffering and death and the problem of evil, and God Almighty has even SACRIFICED HIMSELF as Jesus Christ of the Holy Trinity to fix how really messed up sin makes things. The very fabric and nature of reality and our experience of life on earth has become severely distorted because of sin (that is why the punishment of eternal (everlasting?) destruction seems so severe - because the consequences of sin are EVEN WORSE - the Bible even says it is a choice by spirits wandering and having no place to go but the lake of fire!). Instead of progressing genetically and individually and as a civilization co-habiting with other life on earth like a rocket, there has been barely any change compared to that for thousands of years with tons of problems.

The times back then before the widespread wickedness of humans and the flood would have been very different from today - all those (G)gods still running around with all those powers, even if fallen - the Earth would be a *very* different place with things very different for the people, plants, and creatures living back then. Even after the flood the Bible reports Egyptians using magic (of the gods) forgotten to today to do "scientifically-impossible" things. We can't assume that the extremely physically-limited and confined nature of the way things are in life today was the way things were necessarily before, such that the way things are happening and being and progressing today were the way things were happening back then. It seems by the time Jesus Christ was walking the Earth in His ministry, the way humans experienced reality was largely similar to the way we experience it today. Why are things so different today? The knowledge is hidden, corrupted, and forgotten from the masses, knowledge that was innate in the purity of sinless creation; we are educated to be nothing but relatively static bio-chemical machines ruled purely by those electro-chemical reactions - and things have not always been that way for millions and billions of years if there even has been that much time since earth's creation.

Stay safe my brothers in Jesus Christ of the Holy Trinity. Strive for the narrow way that leads to life. Peace and love .

I am curious _ you said by the time humans "appeared" on Earth in the "6th day" of creation human ( doesn't that mean no humans existed until the 6th day?) Humans had "already" fallen in the "first day" of the creation in the second creation story __ how is that possible for humans to fall in the first day in the second creation story if they were not created until the 6th day?

And I personally do not see two Creation stories, I see Genesis 1 describing the event and Genesis 2 giving a bit more narration of Genesis 1.
Genesis 2:4 starts with saying: these are the generations of the heavens and the Earth.
GENESIS CHAPTER 2 KJV

Generation in the singular is a span of years some say 20 some say 30 some say 40 years. And in the scripture generation has an s, meaning multiple generations, number unknown. And it's speaking of the years between the creations of the heavens, the Earth, all life forms on Earth, including man.

But there are many people who believe that there are two creation accounts I am not one. But I just was curious about the questions I asked and was wondering how could that occur.

 

[Sheila Davis]

To better firmly hold a creationism standpoint, it is important to see there are two creation stories: one of heaven and Earth in Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 and one somewhere else on the first day of the first creation story, before life and other things were created in the heavens and Earth, in Genesis 2:4 - 4:26. Immediately after, the book of Genesis resumes with the conclusion of the first creation story, where Adam has been fruitful and multiplied and become many on earth.

So, on the first day of creation, in the beginning, God created the heaven and the Earth, where the Earth was without form and void. And here comes in the second creation story, which happened outside of the space and reality but within the timeframe of day one of creation. Humans were created by God (NOT stated here in the image and likeness of the (G)gods). The (G)gods were not limited like our sin-corrupted mortal bodies are now. They could do anything except usurp God with knowing good and evil but not sinning, and we could do anything so long as we did not yet know the knowledge of good and evil. There were generations of Adam within this second creation story, where everything was created and grew and evolved before it was brought forth within the rest of the timeframe of the first creation story in six days. By the time humans appeared on earth in the sixth day of creation, humans had already fallen in the first day of creation in the second creation story! Yet, God called everything that was created by day six, "Very Good" !!! And, where Genesis 5 starts, God still made humans in the image of (G)gods and the likeness of not (G)gods but of HIMSELF, DESPITE (or perhaps BECAUSE) THE FALL OF HUMANKIND AND CREATION HAVING ALREADY HAPPENED!!!!

Before sin entered into creation and messed things up (quite severely, especially over humanity's history), it is entirely plausible for each day to have brought forth perfect life very quickly, with genetic and form evolution happening within single lifespans within a day or days - the way things were intended by God - INSTEAD OF THIS REALLY-MESSED-UP FAR-FROM-PERFECT WORLD OF PAIN AND SUFFERING THAT HAS BEEN AROUND FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS. That is why there is pain and suffering and death and the problem of evil, and God Almighty has even SACRIFICED HIMSELF as Jesus Christ of the Holy Trinity to fix how really messed up sin makes things. The very fabric and nature of reality and our experience of life on earth has become severely distorted because of sin (that is why the punishment of eternal (everlasting?) destruction seems so severe - because the consequences of sin are EVEN WORSE - the Bible even says it is a choice by spirits wandering and having no place to go but the lake of fire!). Instead of progressing genetically and individually and as a civilization co-habiting with other life on earth like a rocket, there has been barely any change compared to that for thousands of years with tons of problems.

The times back then before the widespread wickedness of humans and the flood would have been very different from today - all those (G)gods still running around with all those powers, even if fallen - the Earth would be a *very* different place with things very different for the people, plants, and creatures living back then. Even after the flood the Bible reports Egyptians using magic (of the gods) forgotten to today to do "scientifically-impossible" things. We can't assume that the extremely physically-limited and confined nature of the way things are in life today was the way things were necessarily before, such that the way things are happening and being and progressing today were the way things were happening back then. It seems by the time Jesus Christ was walking the Earth in His ministry, the way humans experienced reality was largely similar to the way we experience it today. Why are things so different today? The knowledge is hidden, corrupted, and forgotten from the masses, knowledge that was innate in the purity of sinless creation; we are educated to be nothing but relatively static bio-chemical machines ruled purely by those electro-chemical reactions - and things have not always been that way for millions and billions of years if there even has been that much time since earth's creation.

Stay safe my brothers in Jesus Christ of the Holy Trinity. Strive for the narrow way that leads to life. Peace and love .

I noticed you use the word (G)gods - could this be why?
Melchizedek was a King and priest to the most high God - El/Elyon/Elohim of Salem, who's name seemingly was changed to Yahweh meaning Lord for the Hebrews. Studies indicate El had 7 notible sons and he gave each of those sons rulership - they were considered gods but El was the most high, the supreme god. Who was El?
El - New World Encyclopedia
Who were El's notable children
El - Canaanite God, the God of the Hebrew Bible | Mythology.net

It is highly possible that the Angelic Watchers were worshipped and set themselves up as gods. Is that what you referring to the fallen Angels being gods?

 

[1000 generations]

Creationism - Everything was created in 6 literal days. The creation was in 4004 BC. That what my preacher says. Well. we'll just have to agree to disagree as we both believe God created the heavens and the earth. Although I haven't talked to him about it (and I won't) I don't want to spend hours discussing it.
In the beginning (time) God (force) created (action) the heavens (space) and the earth (matter) which are the building blocks of physics. I enjoyed the movie THE GENESIS CODE and I like science that discovers the nuances of creation.

Now here is where I disagree with Darwinianism. I believe in an evolution that quickly changes. Magnetic reversals and/or excursions can wipe out species very quickly and others arise. Jumping ahead to around 40,000 yrs ago the neanderthals went extinct and modern man arrived. Now, I thought of Duet 7:9 which in part reads "... the faithful God, who keeps covenant and mercy with those that love him and keep his commandments to a thousnand generations." Moses wrote the pentateuch and I believe that is the generation to be used in numbering. 40 years the Israelites wandered in the Sanai. Joshua took the next generation across the Jordan into the promised land. The covenant that God is talking about starts with Adam and ends with the second coming of Jesus who then delivers his flock, his kingdom to God the Father.

40 x 1000 generation is 40,000 yrs. Modern man is the significant pinnacle of his creation. Creationism is part of Dispensationalism. Dispensationalism says basically Christ is not King now but will be after the tribulation, for a thousand years. That there will be a third temple and the Church will be raptured. Not in that order, just points of dispensationalism. We are the Temple, we will go through tribulation according to Jesus, and after the final war of good and evil we will be raised in the resurrection, the one and only resurrection at the second coming.

There's alot of science in the Bible and alot spiritual lessons in the Bible. Christ became the king of the curse. Three days later he was the King of Kings. Not some future king in a 1000 yr reign. The reign started at his ressurrection and is ongoing. The imprisonment of Satan was/is for 1000 yr also. Symbolic yrs. 1000 generations not symbolic. The opposite of dispensationalism.

Happy birthday Sheila

out

 

[Job 33:6]

I agree that there are two creation stories:

Genesis 1:
Day 1: Light separated from dark.
Day 2: Atmosphere created to separated the water above and below.
Day 3: Dry land and trees differentiated; Vegetation (plants and trees) created.
Day 4: Sun, moon, and stars created.
Day 5: Sea creatures and birds created.
Day 6: Land creatures, Man and Woman created.

Genesis 2:
Verse 7: God formed Man from dust.
Verse 8: God planted a Garden.
Verse 9: God caused to grow every tree pleasant to the sight and good for food.
Verse 19: God formed "every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens".
Verse 22: God made Woman.

Consider the above summary. Adam was not created until day 6 in Genesis 1, but God formed man from dust in verse 7. This suggests that if we chronologically read both stories, we would be reading day 6 when reading Genesis 2. Yet in Genesis 2 God caused to grow every tree and formed every beast and every bird after God formed man from dust, which directly contradicts Genesis 1, And in Genesis 2 every tree, every beast and every bird was created before God made woman. Which contradicts Genesis 1 in which plants and trees were made in day 3 and birds in day 5 before day 6 of Genesis 1 in which man and woman were made.

The two stories obviously don't chronologically agree with one another. The reason my above breakdown sounds confusing and needs to be re-read multiple times is because it is confusing because the stories don't align.

Other reasons we know the days weren't literal 24-hour chronological days:
1. There was evening and morning before God created the sun.
2. Day 7 never actually ends.
3. God rests on the 7th day yet of course God would never become tired like people would, and so it's unreasonable to quote Exodus 31:17 in which God rested and became refreshed.
4. I'd defer to the following video on the raqia:

5. The leviathan had multiple heads:

6.

There are many reasons why a 6-day 24-hour literalist approach is simply untenable and is self-contradicting. And quite frankly, it does a disservice to scripture by ignoring all the parallels to ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Ugaritic texts.

 

[Sheila Davis]

Creationism - Everything was created in 6 literal days. The creation was in 4004 BC. That what my preacher says. Well. we'll just have to agree to disagree as we both believe God created the heavens and the earth. Although I haven't talked to him about it (and I won't) I don't want to spend hours discussing it.
In the beginning (time) God (force) created (action) the heavens (space) and the earth (matter) which are the building blocks of physics. I enjoyed the movie THE GENESIS CODE and I like science that discovers the nuances of creation.

Now here is where I disagree with Darwinianism. I believe in an evolution that quickly changes. Magnetic reversals and/or excursions can wipe out species very quickly and others arise. Jumping ahead to around 40,000 yrs ago the neanderthals went extinct and modern man arrived. Now, I thought of Duet 7:9 which in part reads "... the faithful God, who keeps covenant and mercy with those that love him and keep his commandments to a thousnand generations." Moses wrote the pentateuch and I believe that is the generation to be used in numbering. 40 years the Israelites wandered in the Sanai. Joshua took the next generation across the Jordan into the promised land. The covenant that God is talking about starts with Adam and ends with the second coming of Jesus who then delivers his flock, his kingdom to God the Father.

40 x 1000 generation is 40,000 yrs. Modern man is the significant pinnacle of his creation. Creationism is part of Dispensationalism. Dispensationalism says basically Christ is not King now but will be after the tribulation, for a thousand years. That there will be a third temple and the Church will be raptured. Not in that order, just points of dispensationalism. We are the Temple, we will go through tribulation according to Jesus, and after the final war of good and evil we will be raised in the resurrection, the one and only resurrection at the second coming.

There's alot of science in the Bible and alot spiritual lessons in the Bible. Christ became the king of the curse. Three days later he was the King of Kings. Not some future king in a 1000 yr reign. The reign started at his ressurrection and is ongoing. The imprisonment of Satan was/is for 1000 yr also. Symbolic yrs. 1000 generations not symbolic. The opposite of dispensationalism.

Happy birthday Sheila

out

Thank you for your birthday salutation.

I'm curious you said you believe God created the Earth in 6 literal days. Then you say you disagree with Darwinism to a certain degree and gave reason, that 40,000 years ago the Neanderthal went extinct and the homo sapien arrived. 40,000 years ago is an estimated 14610000 days - isn't that a very long way from the literal 6-day creation?
According to what I studied Homo sapiens walked the Earth some estimated 300,000 years.
Oldest known <i>Homo sapiens</i> fossils discovered in Morocco | Natural History Museum

Homo erectus _ seemingly was the first to leave Africa
What Drove Homo Erectus Out of Africa? | Science| Smithsonian Magazine

Neanderthals - their ancestors were seemingly the second to leave Africa and the Neanderthal is mainly said to evolve in Europe.
Neanderthals

Neanderthals: The Original Globetrotters (Published 2017)

Homo sapien _ was the last to leave Africa. Their migration from Africa vary in studies from 100,000 to 60,000 years ago.

The Great Human Migration | History| Smithsonian Magazine

Those amount of years indicates humans have walked the Earth thousands of years and the "literal" six day of creation most likely has been grossly misunderstood _ as written in Scripture one day to the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as one day - meaning anything that God does is not subject to the measures of time God gave to man.
Scholars are still debating the issue of the meaning of the Hebrew word used for day in Genesis 1 & 2.
Can the Hebrew word for day in Genesis 1 (yom) mean a long period of time (eon)? - creation.com

 

[Sheila Davis]

I agree that there are two creation stories:

Genesis 1:
Day 1: Light separated from dark.
Day 2: Atmosphere created to separated the water above and below.
Day 3: Dry land and trees differentiated; Vegetation (plants and trees) created.
Day 4: Sun, moon, and stars created.
Day 5: Sea creatures and birds created.
Day 6: Land creatures, Man and Woman created.

Genesis 2:
Verse 7: God formed Man from dust.
Verse 8: God planted a
Verse 9: God caused to grow every tree pleasant to the sight and good for food.
Verse 19: God formed "every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens".
Verse 22: God made Woman.

Consider the above summary. Adam was not created until day 6 in Genesis 1, but God formed man from dust in verse 7. This suggests that if we chronologically read both stories, we would be reading day 6 when reading Genesis 2. Yet in Genesis 2 God caused to grow every tree and formed every beast and every bird after God formed man from dust, which directly contradicts Genesis 1, And in Genesis 2 every tree, every beast and every bird was created before God made woman. Which contradicts Genesis 1 in which plants and trees were made in day 3 and birds in day 5 before day 6 of Genesis 1 in which man and woman were made.

The two stories obviously don't chronologically agree with one another. The reason my above breakdown sounds confusing and needs to be re-read multiple times is because it is confusing because the stories don't align.

Other reasons we know the days weren't literal 24-hour chronological days:
1. There was evening and morning before God created the sun.
2. Day 7 never actually ends.
3. God rests on the 7th day yet of course God would never become tired like people would, and so it's unreasonable to quote Exodus 31:17 in which God rested and became refreshed.
4. I'd defer to the following video on the raqia:

5. The leviathan had multiple heads:

6.

There are many reasons why a 6-day 24-hour literalist approach is simply untenable and is self-contradicting. And quite frankly, it does a disservice to scripture by ignoring all the parallels to ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Ugaritic texts.

Good morning - I had to debate on whether to make my comment, understanding that there are different views to the creation account, is whether it two separate accounts or one single account.
I have to ask _ why do some expect people who lived thousands of years ago to go by the same standards of today. 100 years ago people did not have the same standards as those of today. Education wasn't well established until the 19th century in this country, and the craft of writing later.

11 Facts About the History of Education in America

Teaching of Writing - History, Issues and Trends in School-Based Writing Instruction, Research

The original ancient Hebrew language has changed drastically since the beginning of their tribesmanship.
Difference Between Ancient and Modern Hebrew | Difference Between

When did they learn to write? And why would they write or think in the technically correct form of writing as people do today?
Hebrew may be world's oldest alphabet

And lastly how many times have their writings been rewritten - at least twice - after the fall from Babylon and after the from in Rome?
What is important is we have a savior and that is what all should believe and agree on.

 

[ReuleauxMan]

Thank you all for the insight, points, and challenges. This makes for great discussion and will help me develop the topic post idea more clearly . I will try to address everyone's points with some close reading of the Genesis creation stories. Quoting and following Sheila Davis's questions seems to bring about the whole discussion .

Note: The bible quotations I use are from the The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: of the Authorized English Version (Ge 2:1). (1873). Cambridge University Press.

I am curious _ you said by the time humans "appeared" on Earth in the "6th day" of creation human ( doesn't that mean no humans existed until the 6th day?) Humans had "already" fallen in the "first day" of the creation in the second creation story __ how is that possible for humans to fall in the first day in the second creation story if they were not created until the 6th day?

And I personally do not see two Creation stories, I see Genesis 1 describing the event and Genesis 2 giving a bit more narration of Genesis 1.

I need to follow my thought processes here that brought me to conclude two creation events: One for heaven and earth timespace that we today are currently living in, which the bible seems to indicate was created before the alleged second creation story, recording some other place, perhaps another timespace, where other things were basically pre-created before they were brought forth again here in this timespace we are living in.

Genesis 1:1
" IN the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
So, we have in the beginning - beginning of what? Beginning necessitates the existence of time: cause and effect. Here, the text simply reads "in the beginning," where heaven and earth are now created. At this point, this could read either as the beginning of just the creation for earth and what ever heaven really means here - heaven/paradise or the literal sky - or this could literally mean the beginning of creation itself.

Genesis 1:2
"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
"And" is the KEY word here. This is both a dividing and continuing word here. Verse 1 happened, then "and"... continues that after all this, the earth was still without form and void, distinguishing the events of creation in verse 1 from the rest of the process of creation while connecting verse 1 to verse 2 in a clarifying way (rather than the creation of heaven and earth in verse 1 being just a summary statement of the entire six days of the first creation story). Then, the Spirit of God moves upon the face of the waters at this point, at which point...

Genesis 1:3
" And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. "
Here again, "And" is the key word here. "And" links all the things in these first verses together into concluding with the end of the "first day", wherein things are happening in verse 2 still before the first day, until in verse 3 God creates light and divides it from darkness, when evening and morning were finally possible, with which we have the period of time that constitutes the first day (perhaps creation did in-fact not happen in six days but with more time, given there was time in the beginning during this creation process before the first day started; this is a new insight to me here now as I read closely).
Today, a day is a twenty-four-hour period of time determined by a complete day and night cycle. In the time of creation, this may or may not have been a different period of time; it is not indicated yet in scripture up to this point the period of time a day is at that time, just that the evening and the morning constitute a whole day.

The key word "and" links together all of the events of the first creation story, when Genesis 2:1 concludes with "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. ", after which, God rests. Genesis 1:1-1:2 [God created heaven and earth, which was still unfinished (earth without form and void) ]. Genesis 1:3 - Genesis 1:31 [God is doing more work on His creation]. Genesis 2:1 - [God finishes His creation, the heavens and earth].

Genesis 2:4-2:5
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 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."
(Some edits for clarity) The great question here may be: If we have just read the first creation story, in Genesis, from its beginning to its conclusion, what is going on here? Genesis 1:1 [God creates heaven and earth]. Genesis 2:4 [Generations of heavens and earth during the day God made the earth and heavens]. So, Genesis 2:4 is opening up with more that was created (by whom? it's not indicated here) happening in the day God made the earth and heavens (the only day God is said to be making both the earth and heaven is in the first evening and morning day period of creation, but some of that could be thought to be happening before the first day may be in fact includable in the first day, ignoring a technical and pedantic definition of the first day having to start with the creation of light divided from darkness; Genesis 2:4 may be a clarifying point on defining the progress of at least some of the very first stage(s) of the first creation creation story in Genesis 1:1-1:2 being included in the first day) with the creation of these things BEFORE they were in/on earth. So the only conclusion that can be drawn at this point is that this is another creation prerequisite to the bringing about of these things on earth.

Genesis 2:6
"But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 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."
(Note: Edited for clarity) This doesn't make sense to read it as part of the first creation story instead of being another, second creation story. Here, man is being formed out of the dust of the ground being at the time before plants and animals were created (indicated in Genesis 2:4-2:5), yet Genesis 1:1 - 1:31 showing man being the last thing created, on day 6, after everything else. There would be a contradiction here but for this being another creation story, of things (earth and heavens and living things) being pre-created there and then being brought about in the first creation story by God's words to make the Earth bring forth these things. With a pre-creation story here happening in the first day of creation, or at least in one of the days sometime before life was brought about on the earth in the first creation story, this makes total sense. Genesis 2:4-2:6, seems to render that when the heavens and earth were (being) created, the first thing God pre-creates after that is man/humans (or at least the first thing before plants and animals, but after the creation of heaven(s) and earth), out of the dust of the ground INSTEAD of a creative evolutionary process rapidly bringing about life until the bodies of humans can support human beings made in the image and likeness of God, as is indicated in the first creation story.

Everything in this pre-creation story happening from Genesis 2:4 - Genesis 4:26, including even the Garden of Eden and even the fall of humankind and even generations of humans reproducing up until men (men and women / humans?) started calling upon the name of the Lord, happened in pre-creation before God brought about life on earth!

Edit: I need to clarify my reasoning. In the very first verse of chapter 5, leaving off from the end of the second creation story, the bible clarifies that this is now in/after the timespace of the first creation story.
"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him"
Humans being created in the image and likeness of God happened only in the first creation story; in the second creation story - pre-creation, the Bible did not state that man was created in the likeness and/or image of God.

 

[Job 33:6]

Good morning - I had to debate on whether to make my comment, understanding that there are different views to the creation account, is whether it two separate accounts or one single account.
I have to ask _ why do some expect people who lived thousands of years ago to go by the same standards of today. 100 years ago people did not have the same standards as those of today. Education wasn't well established until the 19th century in this country, and the craft of writing later.

11 Facts About the History of Education in America

Teaching of Writing - History, Issues and Trends in School-Based Writing Instruction, Research

The original ancient Hebrew language has changed drastically since the beginning of their tribesmanship.
Difference Between Ancient and Modern Hebrew | Difference Between

When did they learn to write? And why would they write or think in the technically correct form of writing as people do today?
Hebrew may be world's oldest alphabet

And lastly how many times have their writings been rewritten - at least twice - after the fall from Babylon and after the from in Rome?
What is important is we have a savior and that is what all should believe and agree on.

My post is not in any way a critique of the authors of Genesis. I view the different creation stories as just being an observation. Different, separate, not meant to be streamed together as if Genesis 2 is contained within Genesis 1, but rather a separate story, neither necessarily meant to be scientific history, but rather historic narrative teaching us truths in ways other than a literal chronological concordant scientific history.

I'd otherwise agree that I wouldn't expect standards to remain the same over time.

 

[Sheila Davis]

Thank you all for the insight, points, and challenges. This makes for great discussion and will help me develop the topic post idea more clearly . I will try to address everyone's points with some close reading of the Genesis creation stories. Quoting and following Sheila Davis's questions seems to bring about the whole discussion .

Note: The bible quotations I use are from the The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: of the Authorized English Version (Ge 2:1). (1873). Cambridge University Press.



I need to follow my thought processes here that brought me to conclude two creation events: One for heaven and earth timespace that we today are currently living in, which the bible seems to indicate was created before the alleged second creation story, recording some other place, perhaps another timespace, where other things were basically pre-created before they were brought forth again here in this timespace we are living in.

Genesis 1:1
" IN the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
So, we have in the beginning - beginning of what? Beginning necessitates the existence of time: cause and effect. Here, the text simply reads "in the beginning," where heaven and earth are now created. At this point, this could read either as the beginning of just the creation for earth and what ever heaven really means here - heaven/paradise or the literal sky - or this could literally mean the beginning of creation itself.

Genesis 1:2
"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
"And" is the KEY word here. This is both a dividing and continuing word here. Verse 1 happened, then "and"... continues that after all this, the earth was still without form and void, distinguishing the events of creation in verse 1 from the rest of the process of creation while connecting verse 1 to verse 2 in a clarifying way (rather than the creation of heaven and earth in verse 1 being just a summary statement of the entire six days of the first creation story). Then, the Spirit of God moves upon the face of the waters at this point, at which point...

Genesis 1:3
" And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. "
Here again, "And" is the key word here. "And" links all the things in these first verses together into concluding with the end of the "first day", wherein things are happening in verse 2 still before the first day, until in verse 3 God creates light and divides it from darkness, when evening and morning were finally possible, with which we have the period of time that constitutes the first day (perhaps creation did in-fact not happen in six days but with more time, given there was time in the beginning during this creation process before the first day started; this is a new insight to me here now as I read closely).
Today, a day is a twenty-four-hour period of time determined by a complete day and night cycle. In the time of creation, this may or may not have been a different period of time; it is not indicated yet in scripture up to this point the period of time a day is at that time, just that the evening and the morning constitute a whole day.

The key word "and" links together all of the events of the first creation story, when Genesis 2:1 concludes with "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. ", after which, God rests. Genesis 1:1-1:2 [God created heaven and earth, which was still unfinished (earth without form and void) ]. Genesis 1:3 - Genesis 1:31 [God is doing more work on His creation]. Genesis 2:1 - [God finishes His creation, the heavens and earth].

Genesis 2:4-2:5
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 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."
(Some edits for clarity) The great question here may be: If we have just read the first creation story, in Genesis, from its beginning to its conclusion, what is going on here? Genesis 1:1 [God creates heaven and earth]. Genesis 2:4 [Generations of heavens and earth during the day God made the earth and heavens]. So, Genesis 2:4 is opening up with more that was created (by whom? it's not indicated here) happening in the day God made the earth and heavens (the only day God is said to be making both the earth and heaven is in the first evening and morning day period of creation, but some of that could be thought to be happening before the first day may be in fact includable in the first day, ignoring a technical and pedantic definition of the first day having to start with the creation of light divided from darkness; Genesis 2:4 may be a clarifying point on defining the progress of at least some of the very first stage(s) of the first creation creation story in Genesis 1:1-1:2 being included in the first day) with the creation of these things BEFORE they were in/on earth. So the only conclusion that can be drawn at this point is that this is another creation prerequisite to the bringing about of these things on earth.

Genesis 2:6
"But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 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."
(Note: Edited for clarity) This doesn't make sense to read it as part of the first creation story instead of being another, second creation story. Here, man is being formed out of the dust of the ground being at the time before plants and animals were created (indicated in Genesis 2:4-2:5), yet Genesis 1:1 - 1:31 showing man being the last thing created, on day 6, after everything else. There would be a contradiction here but for this being another creation story, of things (earth and heavens and living things) being pre-created there and then being brought about in the first creation story by God's words to make the Earth bring forth these things. With a pre-creation story here happening in the first day of creation, or at least in one of the days sometime before life was brought about on the earth in the first creation story, this makes total sense. Genesis 2:4-2:6, seems to render that when the heavens and earth were (being) created, the first thing God pre-creates after that is man/humans (or at least the first thing before plants and animals, but after the creation of heaven(s) and earth), out of the dust of the ground INSTEAD of a creative evolutionary process rapidly bringing about life until the bodies of humans can support human beings made in the image and likeness of God, as is indicated in the first creation story.

Everything in this pre-creation story happening from Genesis 2:4 - Genesis 4:26, including even the Garden of Eden and even the fall of humankind and even generations of humans reproducing up until men (men and women / humans?) started calling upon the name of the Lord, happened in pre-creation before God brought about life on earth!

Edit: I need to clarify my reasoning. In the very first verse of chapter 5, leaving off from the end of the second creation story, the bible clarifies that this is now in/after the timespace of the first creation story.
"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him"
Humans being created in the image and likeness of God happened only in the first creation story; in the second creation story - pre-creation, the Bible did not state that man was created in the likeness and/or image of God.

Ok, so is what you're saying: God created man in Genesis chapter 1 verse 26 on the 6th day, that was the "only" event God created man who's name is called Adam.
When I read Genesis 2 verse 5 God had not caused it to rain upon the Earth and he had no man to till the ground _ verse 6 God watered the Earth _ verse 7 he formed man but it wasn't until verse 15 that he placed man in the garden _ verses 8 and 9 before God put man in the garden he made everything grow. So those scriptures coincides with Genesis 1 that the plants came before man.

That's where a lot of people have a tendency to separate the stories because of how it is written in Genesis chapter 2.
Yet in Genesis chapter 1 God created the sun and moon on the fourth day and told the Earth to bring forth plants and such on the third day. As we know, even those of us who grow their own food the sun is one of the main factors to growing plants, even the grass hardly grows under a tree in a very shaded area. Which is a reason why atheists say the Bible contradicts itself.
For me it's just the way the writer wrote it.
For me, the scribes, people of the ancient days, the majority of them didn't know how to write, those that did know how to write were just learning, and had no proper way of doing so, especially as it is done today. Probably more than of half the people existing today are not well-educated in the proper way of writing any sentence or paragraph. The ancients didn't know what nouns, pronouns, adverbs, adjectives, conjunctions interjections and so forth were, or putting things chronologically in order.
Not only that how many times were the scrolls rewritten _ twice that I know of - after Babylon captivity and after the over throw by the Romans.
I can just not see two creation stories of the Earth or of mankind. When Genesis chapter 2 tells us these are the generations I see it as being a summary of Genesis 1.
And there are many who believe and teach there are two creation stories especially of humans.
Pastor Arnold Murray and a couple of others I've heard taught that the Earth "became" void and without form _ something catastrophic happened to the Earth and God reformed it.

Thank you for your patience.

 

[Sheila Davis]

My post is not in any way a critique of the authors of Genesis. I view the different creation stories as just being an observation. Different, separate, not meant to be streamed together as if Genesis 2 is contained within Genesis 1, but rather a separate story, neither necessarily meant to be scientific history, but rather historic narrative teaching us truths in ways other than a literal chronological concordant scientific history.

I'd otherwise agree that I wouldn't expect standards to remain the same over time.

My intent was not meaning you were a critic of the authors of Genesis _ only to bring about the question
I personally see chronological order with Genesis 1 _ Genesis 2:5 -6 man was not placed in the garden on Earth until after God watered the earth and the plants grew written in both 2:8 & 2:15 where he placed man in the garden of Eden _ even though in Genesis 2:7 he formed man _ verse 9 everything begin to grow.
I see the plants growing before God put man on Earth as written in Genesis 1.
I apologize for saying anything - your views are yours to have - there are many who view just as you also.

 

[Job 33:6]

I see the plants growing before God put man on Earth as written in Genesis 1.

This is just a mess.
before any plant of the field was on earth, and before any plant of the field had sprung up, because Yahweh God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no human being to cultivate the ground, but a stream would rise from the earth and water the whole face of the ground—
Genesis 2:5‭-‬6 LEB

when [or "and"] Yahweh God formed the man of dust from the ground, and he blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. And Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden in the east, and there he put the man whom he had [previously] formed. And Yahweh God caused to grow every tree that was pleasing to the sight and good for food. And the tree of life was in the midst of the garden, along with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Genesis 2:7‭-‬9 LEB

No need to complicate the situation. Scripture very clearly says Man was made first, then vegetation of the garden was made, then Man was placed into the garden.

It says for God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, so how could anyone then turn and say that God made vegetation first?

The contradiction couldn't be more plain and clear.

It couldn't be chronological, it has to be two separate creation stories.

Here's my question, how can it be that God made vegetation first if Genesis 2 clearly states "before any plant of the field had sprung up, because Yahweh God had not caused it to rain upon the earth (Gen 2:5-6)" [and/then God formed the man 2:7]

 

[ReuleauxMan]

Note to reader: I've used "The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: of the Authorized English Version (Ge 1:26). (1873). Cambridge University Press." again for bible quotations.

Ok, so is what you're saying: God created man in Genesis chapter 1 verse 26 on the 6th day,

I read this, read again most of the Genesis creation accounts, focusing on the word "create" and found it inconsistently used with "make," "let the earth bring forth," etc. in the Cambridge paragraph bible. I'm guessing this is pretty close to the 1611 King James Authorized Version except for updating archaic word spellings. I could not draw logical parallels with the word choices, and trying to make everything in as much logical harmony as I could, the imperfect quality of the writing and inconsistencies started to show. This seems to shatter the two creation stories theory, the accuracy of the writing (being it seems inconsistent) and the truthfulness/actuality of the Genesis creation / origin saga, and without a valid creation story that actually happened, the whole entire rest of the Bible that follows it completely crumbles (as it is based on this fundamental creation aspect - sin and the fall of man and the need for redemption because of sin and the fall), or at the least the rest of the bible being subject to suspicion for the same lack of infallability (as actually being the infallible "Word of God") with this problem in the Genesis creation account.

So: Holy Bible not infallible, The Holy Bible then isn't God's Word, so no rational reason for me to be a Christian.

THANK YOU SO MUCH Sheila Davis ! You have been vital in helping me figure this out; now I can finally be free from wrestling with trying to figure out whether Christianity is God's true and only religion that excludes all others.

...

That's where a lot of people have a tendency to separate the stories because of how it is written in Genesis chapter 2.
Yet in Genesis chapter 1 God created the sun and moon on the fourth day and told the Earth to bring forth plants and such on the third day. As we know, even those of us who grow their own food the sun is one of the main factors to growing plants, even the grass hardly grows under a tree in a very shaded area. Which is a reason why atheists say the Bible contradicts itself.
For me it's just the way the writer wrote it.
For me, the scribes, people of the ancient days, the majority of them didn't know how to write, those that did know how to write were just learning, and had no proper way of doing so, especially as it is done today.

Probably more than of half the people existing today are not well-educated in the proper way of writing any sentence or paragraph. The ancients didn't know what nouns, pronouns, adverbs, adjectives, conjunctions interjections and so forth were, or putting things chronologically in order.
Not only that how many times were the scrolls rewritten _ twice that I know of - after Babylon captivity and after the over throw by the Romans.

Yes, all of this really helped me with figuring out the above . If God wanted His Word to be written down and preserved, He would have made it happen or made it possible for it to make it happen. The scribes and prophets would have known enough to write down God's inspiration perfectly if it was indeed inspired, or else there would be errors that indicate it was indeed not the inspiration of God but the musings of mythology.

And I thank you for your patience as well to mull through my walls of text haha !

 

[Sheila Davis]

This is just a mess.
before any plant of the field was on earth, and before any plant of the field had sprung up, because Yahweh God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no human being to cultivate the ground, but a stream would rise from the earth and water the whole face of the ground—
Genesis 2:5‭-‬6 LEB

when [or "and"] Yahweh God formed the man of dust from the ground, and he blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. And Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden in the east, and there he put the man whom he had [previously] formed. And Yahweh God caused to grow every tree that was pleasing to the sight and good for food. And the tree of life was in the midst of the garden, along with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Genesis 2:7‭-‬9 LEB

No need to complicate the situation. Scripture very clearly says Man was made first, then vegetation of the garden was made, then Man was placed into the garden.

It says for God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, so how could anyone then turn and say that God made vegetation first?

The contradiction couldn't be more plain and clear.

It couldn't be chronological, it has to be two separate creation stories.

Here's my question, how can it be that God made vegetation first if Genesis 2 clearly states "before any plant of the field had sprung up, because Yahweh God had not caused it to rain upon the earth"?

Yes it is a mess if you say so!
I wonder why Genesis 2:15 is omitted in people's beliefs - it says the same exact thing as Genesis 2:8
GENESIS 2:15 KJV "And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it."
Verse 6 says God watered the Earth

Verse 7 says he created man

Verse 8 says he planted the garden FIRST before he put man in it - so there had to be trees, and plants, grass
Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, where He placed the man He had formed.
If you think it's not in chronological order - if you think it's a contradiction - so it is for you!

 

[Sheila Davis]

Note to reader: I've used "The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: of the Authorized English Version (Ge 1:26). (1873). Cambridge University Press." again for bible quotations.



I read this, read again most of the Genesis creation accounts, focusing on the word "create" and found it inconsistently used with "make," "let the earth bring forth," etc. in the Cambridge paragraph bible. I'm guessing this is pretty close to the 1611 King James Authorized Version except for updating archaic word spellings. I could not draw logical parallels with the word choices, and trying to make everything in as much logical harmony as I could, the imperfect quality of the writing and inconsistencies started to show. This seems to shatter the two creation stories theory, the accuracy of the writing (being it seems inconsistent) and the truthfulness/actuality of the Genesis creation / origin saga, and without a valid creation story that actually happened, the whole entire rest of the Bible that follows it completely crumbles (as it is based on this fundamental creation aspect - sin and the fall of man and the need for redemption because of sin and the fall), or at the least the rest of the bible being subject to suspicion for the same lack of infallability (as actually being the infallible "Word of God") with this problem in the Genesis creation account.

So: Holy Bible not infallible, The Holy Bible then isn't God's Word, so no rational reason for me to be a Christian.

THANK YOU SO MUCH Sheila Davis ! You have been vital in helping me figure this out; now I can finally be free from wrestling with trying to figure out whether Christianity is God's true and only religion that excludes all others.



Yes, all of this really helped me with figuring out the above . If God wanted His Word to be written down and preserved, He would have made it happen or made it possible for it to make it happen. The scribes and prophets would have known enough to write down God's inspiration perfectly if it was indeed inspired, or else there would be errors that indicate it was indeed not the inspiration of God but the musings of mythology.

And I thank you for your patience as well to mull through my walls of text haha !

Man wrote what God inspired them to write - i n s p i r e d. God did not say take a pen and write each and every word that comes out of my mouth - dictate. The only thing commanded by God to be written was the Ten commandments and he wrote them himself.
Now when you go further in the Old Testament - it will say the Lord said unto me or the Word of the Lord said unto me and they, the prophets, Kings wrote what he said the best of their ability.
And if you think an imperfect man could write with the perfection of God or those who rewrote it throughout the past 4 thousand years - well you are who you are.
And when you go to the New testament the words of Jesus were quoted by those who heard them and told of them to others.

When one understands the definition of inspired, when one understands what infallible Word of God means then one would know the Bible is based on the Word of God - those that don't never will.
Now personally what you believe is your business - You have heard and you have the right to choose what you believe - it is not my position to try to convince or convert you or anybody. Scripture tells of what is coming to those who refuse.
" You said if God wanted he would have" - it's because of his Mercy that mankind even exist. "If God wanted" he wants all to be saved but billions/trillions are not.

How you come to whatever conclusions you come to from what I wrote, shows your intent, to ensnare - but good, honest, trustworthy people, whether unbelievers or not, will read, and understand (and I didn't say agree) my words for what they are and mean and how they have been tossed around like a lottery ball by you.

Again thank you for your patience - meaning taking time to read what I wrote, nothing more - I have a tendency to say that from time to time or thank you for your conversation - or it was nice corresponding with you. I try to be respectful to anyone I talk to.

 

[ReuleauxMan]

Man wrote what God inspired them to write - i n s p i r e d. God did not say take a pen and write each and every word that comes out of my mouth - dictate. The only thing commanded by God to be written was the Ten commandments and he wrote them himself.
Now when you go further in the Old Testament - it will say the Lord said unto me or the Word of the Lord said unto me and they, the prophets, Kings wrote what he said the best of their ability.
And if you think an imperfect man could write with the perfection of God or those who rewrote it throughout the past 4 thousand years - well you are who you are.
And when you go to the New testament the words of Jesus were quoted by those who heard them and told of them to others.

When one understands the definition of inspired, when one understands what infallible Word of God means then one would know the Bible is based on the Word of God - those that don't never will.
Now personally what you believe is your business - You have heard and you have the right to choose what you believe - it is not my position to try to convince or convert you or anybody. Scripture tells of what is coming to those who refuse.
" You said if God wanted he would have" - it's because of his Mercy that mankind even exist. "If God wanted" he wants all to be saved but billions/trillions are not.

How you come to whatever conclusions you come to from what I wrote, shows your intent, to ensnare - but good, honest, trustworthy people, whether unbelievers or not, will read, and understand (and I didn't say agree) my words for what they are and mean and how they have been tossed around like a lottery ball by you.

Again thank you for your patience - meaning taking time to read what I wrote, nothing more - I have a tendency to say that from time to time or thank you for your conversation - or it was nice corresponding with you. I try to be respectful to anyone I talk to.

I was just going to be on my way, leaving Christianity behind, and leave the discussion as is, but considering your passive-aggressive, condescending attitude and outright personal attacks, I will set the record straight. Please, stop these pointless yet corrosive attacks against me (or anyone else, I can take it but many people get offended by passive-aggressive stuff and insults) and treat me with respect a respectful person deserves, or the love and gentle correction someone in error deserves, like I have done with you this whole discussion.

"
And if you think an imperfect man could write with the perfection of God or those who rewrote it throughout the past 4 thousand years - well you are who you are.
"

What do you mean by "well you are who you are" because I think that imperfect man can write the perfection of God? Who am I if I do? Ain't it possible? Why can't God say: "Let there be light" or anything else and man not do it?

"Now personally what you believe is your business - You have heard and you have the right to choose what you believe - it is not my position to try to convince or convert you or anybody. Scripture tells of what is coming to those who refuse."

Yes, it is my business; I don't need your validation or permission, as the text insinuates here. And I know I have the right to whatever I want to believe, it's a basic human right and I'm not choosing here based on the choices here I have heard from you that you are offering. But I most certainly did my best to provide convincing arguments for my positions for Christianity without force of demanding someone to be convinced, especially with the passive-aggressive threat of "Scripture tells of what is coming to those who refuse." And I honestly stated how I was convinced with the material you provided, guiding me to further study of the creation account, whereby I honestly stated my conclusion and thanked you for your input. I worked with the best logic and reason I could, and I made the conclusion that made sense to me.

"How you come to whatever conclusions you come to from what I wrote, shows your intent, to ensnare - but good, honest, trustworthy people, whether unbelievers or not, will read, and understand (and I didn't say agree) my words for what they are and mean and how they have been tossed around like a lottery ball by you."
How you responded to my post shows you intent: to shame, humiliate, and degrade and debase, with false accusations nonetheless. Why do you think I tried to ensnare? Ensnare who or what for why? And how dare you accuse me of being such a person, so dishonest, so untrustworthy, even for an unbeliever, when you don't know a thing about me. So I have to read, and understand your words for what they are and how you mean them (and not toss them around like a lottery ball, what ever that means) in order to fit your criteria of being a good, honest, trustworthy person? I don't care about your standards, you've taught me nothing with that.

All I can do now then is certify that I participated honestly in this debate, as believing as I could be as a Christian, fully believing in the absolute truth of the infallible Word of God. After some discussion, I used the same logic I could and reasoning processes I could to suddenly but thoroughly realize, and state why, my conclusion that I couldn't believe in Christianity anymore (because I could not believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God, because it seemed fallible of the creation story was errant).


"Again thank you for your patience - meaning taking time to read what I wrote, nothing more - I have a tendency to say that from time to time or thank you for your conversation - or it was nice corresponding with you. I try to be respectful to anyone I talk to."
You weren't respectful, as I described in the paragraphs above.

Good day, and I hope that you never do to anyone else what you have tried to do to me in the post I quoted from you (shame, humiliate, etc. as described above). Edit: I know I was a bit incendiary with my statements, but I thought it was the best way to present my case. I could have easily been completely kind and loving, but this just didn't seem to be the scenario to do that (edit ( 2022-08-01: just love love love peace peace peace joy joy joy and "turn the other cheek" wouldn't have had any positive effect; nothing positive would have been accomplished). I basically didn't see any options to effectively deflect and hopefully disarm that attack other than a little riposte. Again, Good day and I wish the best for you.

 

[Sheila Davis]

I was just going to be on my way, leaving Christianity behind, and leave the discussion as is, but considering your passive-aggressive, condescending attitude and outright personal attacks, I will set the record straight. Please, stop these pointless yet corrosive attacks against me (or anyone else, I can take it but many people get offended by passive-aggressive stuff and insults) and treat me with respect a respectful person deserves, or the love and gentle correction someone in error deserves, like I have done with you this whole discussion.

Where

"
And if you think an imperfect man could write with the perfection of God or those who rewrote it throughout the past 4 thousand years - well you are who you are.


Is that the personal attack you're talking about. You are who you are is self-explanatory dear sir.

"

What do you mean by "well you are who you are" because I think that imperfect man can write the perfection of God? Who am I if I do? Ain't it possible? Why can't God say: "Let there be light" or anything else and man not do it?

"Now personally what you believe is your business - You have heard and you have the right to choose what you believe - it is not my position to try to convince or convert you or anybody. Scripture tells of what is coming to those who refuse."

Yes, it is my business; I don't need your validation or permission, as the text insinuates here. And I know I have the right to whatever I want to believe, it's a basic human right and I'm not choosing here based on the choices here I have heard from you that you are offering. But I most certainly did my best to provide convincing arguments for my positions for Christianity without force of demanding someone to be convinced, especially with the passive-aggressive threat of "Scripture tells of what is coming to those who refuse." And I honestly stated how I was convinced with the material you provided, guiding me to further study of the creation account, whereby I honestly stated my conclusion and thanked you for your input. I worked with the best logic and reason I could, and I made the conclusion that made sense to me.

"How you come to whatever conclusions you come to from what I wrote, shows your intent, to ensnare - but good, honest, trustworthy people, whether unbelievers or not, will read, and understand (and I didn't say agree) my words for what they are and mean and how they have been tossed around like a lottery ball by you."
How you responded to my post shows you intent: to shame, humiliate, and degrade and debase, with false accusations nonetheless. Why do you think I tried to ensnare? Ensnare who or what for why? And how dare you accuse me of being such a person, so dishonest, so untrustworthy, even for an unbeliever, when you don't know a thing about me. So I have to read, and understand your words for what they are and how you mean them (and not toss them around like a lottery ball, what ever that means) in order to fit your criteria of being a good, honest, trustworthy person? I don't care about your standards, you've taught me nothing with that.

All I can do now then is certify that I participated honestly in this debate, as believing as I could be as a Christian, fully believing in the absolute truth of the infallible Word of God. After some discussion, I used the same logic I could and reasoning processes I could to suddenly but thoroughly realize, and state why, my conclusion that I couldn't believe in Christianity anymore (because I could not believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God, because it seemed fallible of the creation story was errant).


"Again thank you for your patience - meaning taking time to read what I wrote, nothing more - I have a tendency to say that from time to time or thank you for your conversation - or it was nice corresponding with you. I try to be respectful to anyone I talk to."
You weren't respectful, as I described in the paragraphs above.

Good day, and I hope that you never do to anyone else what you have tried to do to me in the post I quoted from you (shame, humiliate, etc. as described above). Edit: I know I was a bit incendiary with my statements, but I thought it was the best way to present my case. I could have easily been completely kind and loving, but this just didn't seem to be the scenario to do that. I basically didn't see any options to effectively deflect and hopefully disarm that attack other than a little riposte. Again, Good day and I wish the best for you.

Only read the first paragraph - reading anything else makes no sense to me
Enjoy your life

 

[ReuleauxMan]

Only read the first paragraph - reading anything else makes no sense to me
Enjoy your life

Thank you ! All the best with all the love I can send from here !

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes it is a mess if you say so!
I wonder why Genesis 2:15 is omitted in people's beliefs - it says the same exact thing as Genesis 2:8
GENESIS 2:15 KJV "And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it."
Verse 6 says God watered the Earth

Verse 7 says he created man

Verse 8 says he planted the garden FIRST before he put man in it - so there had to be trees, and plants, grass
Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, where He placed the man He had formed.
If you think it's not in chronological order - if you think it's a contradiction - so it is for you!

Verse 8 doesn't come until after verse 7. He didn't plant the garden until after He made man.

That's why it says:
Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
Genesis 2:7‭-‬8‭, ‬15 NIV

There He put the man he had, aka past tense, already, formed.

Ie he made the man, planted the garden, and then put the man in the garden. But if there was still doubt about what it says, we can also include verse 5.
Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Genesis 2:5‭, ‬7 NASB1995

 

[Job 33:6]

Verse 8 doesn't come until after verse 7. He didn't plant the garden until after He made man.

That's why it says:
Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
Genesis 2:7‭-‬8‭, ‬15 NIV

There He put the man he had, aka past tense, already, formed.

Ie he made the man, planted the garden, and then put the man in the garden. But if there was still doubt about what it says, we can also include verse
Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Genesis 2:5‭, ‬7 NASB1995

So here it all is, chronologically:

Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Genesis 2:5‭-‬9 NASB1995

Just read the bold text in order. It's very simple and clear and straightforward.

So chronologically, God created rivers, God makes man, God plants a garden, God places man in the garden, then out of the ground God causes every tree to grow.