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

[Job 33:6]

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.

And you know what else?

The same contradiction exists for the creation of animals too.

And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so.
Genesis 1:24 ESV

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Genesis 1:26 ESV

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
Genesis 2:18‭-‬19 ESV

Very clearly in Genesis 1 God makes land animals first, then makes Man.

When in Genesis 2, Man is described as "alone" and then God proceeds with creating land animals.

In case the situation with plants wasn't telling enough, the same issue exists with animals, thereby verifying that I deed, in Genesis 2, Man came before both plants and animals.

And this still isn't even the full extent of chronological contradiction. In Genesis two, as we see above, God makes Adam, then plants, the animals and then eventually creates Eve. Hence why Adam names all the animals but cannot find a suitable partner for Him. Because eve hadn't yet existed.

But in Genesis 1, God makes man and woman at the same time. He created them male and female.

It's just not possible to view these stories as chronologically coherent. Genesis 2 couldn't just be a more detailed account of Day 6. It must be two separate stories.

 

[Job 33:6]

And you know what else?

The same contradiction exists for the creation of animals too.

And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so.
Genesis 1:24 ESV

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Genesis 1:26 ESV

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
Genesis 2:18‭-‬19 ESV

Very clearly in Genesis 1 God makes land animals first, then makes Man.

When in Genesis 2, Man is described as "alone" and then God proceeds with creating land animals.

In case the situation with plants wasn't telling enough, the same issue exists with animals, thereby verifying that I deed, in Genesis 2, Man came before both plants and animals.

And this still isn't even the full extent of chronological contradiction. In Genesis two, as we see above, God makes Adam, then plants, the animals and then eventually creates Eve. Hence why Adam names all the animals but cannot find a suitable partner for Him. Because eve hadn't yet existed.

But in Genesis 1, God makes man and woman at the same time. He created them male and female.

It's just not possible to view these stories as chronologically coherent. Genesis 2 couldn't just be a more detailed account of Day 6. It must be two separate stories.

And there are more facts to consider.

Genesis 1 consists of 6 days.
Genesis 2 says:
These are the generations of heaven and earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made earth and heaven—
Genesis 2:4 LEB

Ie, Genesis 2 unfolds in one day. "In the day".

Herein resides another contradiction. Suggesting again that they are separate stories. It's either one day or it's 6, it's either man created before trees, animals and birds, then woman created, or it's trees birds and animals, then man created.

Genesis 2:19:
And out of the ground Yahweh God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and he brought each to the man to see what he would call it. And whatever the man called that living creature was its name.
Genesis 2:19 LEB

Here in Genesis 2, God makes beasts of the field and birds on the same day. But in Genesis 1, God makes birds on day 5, then doesn't create beasts till day 6.

I'm just pointing out that, these really no way to logically combine these two stories into one seamless chronology without quite a few, clear, contradictions in what is very clearly stated.

 

[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."

I'm not sure that this is the case that the two verses are repeating the same thing.

If you check the Hebrew language between the two, the words are different. In Verses 2:8 God essentially appoints Adam to the garden as in Genesis 4:15 or Genesis 24:9, whereas in 2:15, the Hebrew word for placed means something closer to rests, as in Exodus 16:34 and 1 Kings 13:29. One is closer to setting something, while the other is closer to resting something.

"Pulpit Commentary
Verse 15. - Having prepared the garden for man's reception, the Lord God took the man. "Not physically lifting him up and putting him down in the garden, but simply exerting an influence upon him which induced him, in the exercise of his free agency, to go. He went in consequence of a secret impulse or an open command of his Maker" (Bush). And put him into the garden; literally, caused him to rest in it as an abode of happiness and peace. To dress it. I.e. to till, cultivate, and work it."

In one verse God is placing Adam into the garden and then God grows trees, the next verse God is resting Adam in the garden so that Adam may then till and cultivate the land with his own sovereign abilities.

Because the original Hebrew is different between 2:8 and 2:15, this suggests that indeed they mean different things, despite modern English translations being worded the same.

This is from the amplified Bible translation:

And the Lord God planted a garden (oasis) in the east, in Eden (delight, land of happiness); and He put the man whom He had formed (created) there.

So the Lord God took the man [He had made] and settled him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate and keep it.
Genesis 2:8‭, ‬15 AMP

In one verse God places Adam, in the next, He is resting or settling Adam. This isn't repetition of the same event. It also just wouldn't make sense if it were scripture repeating itself anyway. Usually when scripture says something weird, it's because there's more to the context going on that English translations don't always pick up too well.

In modern times, we are used to reading books where we can read chapter 1 chapter 2 and chapter 3 in order and it makes sense to us. But when we read Genesis 1 and 2, we need to understand that this material was written over 3,000 years ago and it was written by various people with a context very different than what we have today. And that's why it's difficult for us to work with Genesis one and two, we want to read it like a regular book and we want Genesis to to flow seamlessly with Genesis 1. But that's just not the reality of what the scriptures say.

They don't flow seamlessly, indeed they are separate and independent and some scholars suggest that Genesis 2 was even written prior to Genesis 1. Despite Genesis 1 coming first in the Bible.

 

[Sheila Davis]

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

 

[Sheila Davis]

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

I am fully aware of verse 8 comes after verse 7.
Verse 8 _ and the Lord planted a garden Eastwood in Eden and there he put the man whom he had formed. God did not place man in the garden on Earth until after he had planted it.
Now you understand it differently - fine - your right to do so.

 

[Sheila Davis]

I'm not sure that this is the case that the two verses are repeating the same thing.

If you check the Hebrew language between the two, the words are different. In Verses 2:8 God essentially appoints Adam to the garden as in Genesis 4:15 or Genesis 24:9, whereas in 2:15, the Hebrew word for placed means something closer to rests, as in Exodus 16:34 and 1 Kings 13:29. One is closer to setting something, while the other is closer to resting something.

"Pulpit Commentary
Verse 15. - Having prepared the garden for man's reception, the Lord God took the man. "Not physically lifting him up and putting him down in the garden, but simply exerting an influence upon him which induced him, in the exercise of his free agency, to go. He went in consequence of a secret impulse or an open command of his Maker" (Bush). And put him into the garden; literally, caused him to rest in it as an abode of happiness and peace. To dress it. I.e. to till, cultivate, and work it."

In one verse God is placing Adam into the garden and then God grows trees, the next verse God is resting Adam in the garden so that Adam may then till and cultivate the land with his own sovereign abilities.

Because the original Hebrew is different between 2:8 and 2:15, this suggests that indeed they mean different things, despite modern English translations being worded the same.

This is from the amplified Bible translation:

And the Lord God planted a garden (oasis) in the east, in Eden (delight, land of happiness); and He put the man whom He had formed (created) there.

So the Lord God took the man [He had made] and settled him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate and keep it.
Genesis 2:8‭, ‬15 AMP

In one verse God places Adam, in the next, He is resting or settling Adam. This isn't repetition of the same event. It also just wouldn't make sense if it were scripture repeating itself anyway. Usually when scripture says something weird, it's because there's more to the context going on that English translations don't always pick up too well.

In modern times, we are used to reading books where we can read chapter 1 chapter 2 and chapter 3 in order and it makes sense to us. But when we read Genesis 1 and 2, we need to understand that this material was written over 3,000 years ago and it was written by various people with a context very different than what we have today. And that's why it's difficult for us to work with Genesis one and two, we want to read it like a regular book and we want Genesis to to flow seamlessly with Genesis 1. But that's just not the reality of what the scriptures say.

They don't flow seamlessly, indeed they are separate and independent and some scholars suggest that Genesis 2 was even written prior to Genesis 1. Despite Genesis 1 coming first in the Bible.

KJV w/ Strong's Concordance - Genesis 2

I agree with the studies of those in the links below.
Does Genesis Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 Contain Contradictory Accounts of Creation?

Do Genesis 1 and 2 record two different creation accounts?

Why Are the Creation Stories in Genesis 1 and 2 Different? What Really Happened?

I study, I study, I study.
I study almost all differences of beliefs to the meaning of certain scriptures available to be studied where there are different views.
I even study the views of atheists for better understanding of their views.
What I believe is what I believe - what others believe is their choice. I state what I believe and I move on.
Thank you for your conversation.

 

[Job 33:6]

I am fully aware of verse 8 comes after verse 7.
Verse 8 _ and the Lord planted a garden Eastwood in Eden and there he put the man whom he had formed. God did not place man in the garden on Earth until after he had planted it.
Now you understand it differently - fine - your right to do so.

But it's not about when he placed man in the garden, It's about when man was created, ie Man was created first, before the trees, from clay.

It's not about what I believe, it's about what scripture simply says. And it's the same thing with animals, Adam and Genesis to very clearly is created before beasts of the land. It's not about my opinion or my beliefs, it's about quite literally what scripture says. Whereas in Genesis 1, it is the opposite that is true.

In Genesis 2 God creates the beasts and Adam sits around and names them. In Genesis 1, Adam isn't made until after be still the land on day 6.

And this has nothing to do with my personal beliefs, rather it's simply a matter of fact and what scripture says.

 

[Job 33:6]

But it's not about when he placed man in the garden, It's about when man was created, ie Man was created first, before the trees, from clay.

It's not about what I believe, it's about what scripture simply says. And it's the same thing with animals, Adam and Genesis to very clearly is created before beasts of the land. It's not about my opinion or my beliefs, it's about quite literally what scripture says. Whereas in Genesis 1, it is the opposite that is true.

In Genesis 2 God creates the beasts and Adam sits around and names them. In Genesis 1, Adam isn't made until after be still the land on day 6.

And this has nothing to do with my personal beliefs, rather it's simply a matter of fact and what scripture says.

So God made the wild animals of the earth according to their kind, and the cattle according to their kind, and everything that creeps and crawls on the earth according to its kind; and God saw that it was good (pleasing, useful) and He affirmed and sustained it. Then God said, “Let Us (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) make man in Our image, according to Our likeness [not physical, but a spiritual personality and moral likeness]; and let them have complete authority over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the cattle, and over the entire earth, and over everything that creeps and crawls on the earth.”
Genesis 1:25‭-‬26 AMP

So the Lord God formed out of the ground every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
Genesis 2:19 AMP

Genesis 1, animal and then man.
Genesis 2, man and then animal.

No opinions, no beliefs, just factual observation.

All the best.

 

[Sheila Davis]

But it's not about when he placed man in the garden, It's about when man was created, ie Man was created first, before the trees, from clay.

It's not about what I believe, it's about what scripture simply says. And it's the same thing with animals, Adam and Genesis to very clearly is created before beasts of the land. It's not about my opinion or my beliefs, it's about quite literally what scripture says. Whereas in Genesis 1, it is the opposite that is true.

What?

In Genesis 2 God creates the beasts and Adam sits around and names them. In Genesis 1, Adam isn't made until after be still the land on day 6.

What?

And this has nothing to do with my personal beliefs, rather it's simply a matter of fact and what scripture says.

Wow "now" it's about when Man was created.
OK - Genesis chapter one verse 26 tells us Man was created on the 6th day at some point after beast and cattle. That's what scripture says. And if you do not see Genesis chapter 2 as a more detail narration of Genesis chapter 1 - so be it.

Again I say you believe whatever you want to believe - your interpretation of what you feel scripture says concerning the creation is for you. It is pointless to continue to go backwards and forwards, nor does it edify God in doing so. Probably why it is written in scripture not to debate over it.
2 Timothy 2:14 - Bible Gateway

I have nothing else to say - thank you again for the conversation _ goodbye

 

[Job 33:6]

So God made the wild animals of the earth according to their kind, and the cattle according to their kind, and everything that creeps and crawls on the earth according to its kind; and God saw that it was good (pleasing, useful) and He affirmed and sustained it. Then God said, “Let Us (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) make man in Our image, according to Our likeness [not physical, but a spiritual personality and moral likeness]; and let them have complete authority over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the cattle, and over the entire earth, and over everything that creeps and crawls on the earth.”
Genesis 1:25‭-‬26 AMP

So the Lord God formed out of the ground every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
Genesis 2:19 AMP

Genesis 1, animal and then man.
Genesis 2, man and then animal.

No opinions, no beliefs, just factual observation.

All the best.

Genesis 2 cannot be a more detailed description of Genesis 1 because they directly contradict one another. As noted in the example quoted above.

If they told the same story, I would agree. But in the text they clearly tell two different stories.

All the best.

 

[JAL]

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.

It is unlikely that Moses stupidly forgot everything written in Genesis 1 when he wrote chapter 2.

I'm an OEC. I believe in six literal days - six long Daylights stretching at least the 4 billion years of the earths creation, perhaps even the full 13 billion years.

Genesis 1 is probably more of a topical account than a chronological one. A topical statement mentions each topic only once, "This week I cooked meals, did laundry, washed my vehicles, and took out the garbage," and thus:
...(1) There is no definitive chronology here.
...(2) How many times did I do each of those things? Unknown.


Genesis 1 is topical because:
...(1) God says, Let there be light - once? Or 7 times? Presumably at LEAST seven times but only mentioned once. See item 2 above.
...(2) WHEN are each of His statements fulfilled? Unknown chronology.


Genesis 2 is almost certainly topical as well because, for one thing, the six days are here subsumed into the "day" (the period) of creation (Genesis 2:4).

At verse 5, the Hebrew word can mean earth or land:

"5 And no plant of the field was yet in the [land]".

What land? Moses is zooming in on Adam and Eve. The "land" probably refers to their immediate vicinity (perhaps a small region containing the Garden of Eden).

"5 And no plant of the field was yet in the [land]...there was not a man to till the ground".

This refers to farming. That's the CONTEXT of the Genesis 2 narrative. When we get to verse 9:

"9 And out of the ground made Jehovah God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight"

You say this contradicts the Genesis 1 account? Three problems:
...(1) You can't necessarily pull a verse out of a farming context and apply it to all creation.
...(2) Genesis 1 is probably more topical than chronological.
...(3) As you know, a statement in Hebrew like "God did X" could mean, "God (previously) HAD done X". Here again, no definitive chronology.

Day 7 never actually ends.

Correct. The seventh Daylight is everlasting in my literal reading.

God rests on the 7th day yet of course God would never become tired like people would,

I categorically reject that notion. An indefatigable God is a Platonic fabrication contradicted by the Incarnation where God (Jesus) grew weary.

It's either one day or it's 6

False dichotomy. The term "day" can summarize an entire period. "In the day when Britain ruled the nations..."

I'd defer to the following video on the raqia:

Yes, God has anchored the stars in a solid dome in my literal reading. You don't really want to take Newton's theory of gravity literally, do you? Newton himself didn't, as I'm sure you know.

Conclusion: Moses uses topical language to summarize the creation in Genesis 1. He again uses topical language in Genesis 2 to re-summarize, adding this time a few more details by zooming in on Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Edin.


This post was just from a cursory glance at the text. These days my health is too poor to do any research. Chances are if I missed anything, however, some literal apologist already covered it.

And I'm not insisting that Genesis 1 is literal. I'm merely OPINING that it is. Reasonable arguments exist on both sides of the debate.

You've decided upon a non-literal reading. Fine. In that case I trust you've fully prayed about whether you should really be trying to establish biblical contradictions in the minds of God's people.

 

[Sheila Davis]

It is unlikely that Moses stupidly forgot everything written in Genesis 1 when he wrote chapter 2.

I'm an OEC. I believe in six literal days - six long Daylights stretching at least the 4 billion years of the earths creation, perhaps even the full 13 billion years.

Genesis 1 is probably more of a topical account than a chronological one. A topical statement mentions each topic only once, "This week I cooked meals, did laundry, washed my vehicles, and took out the garbage," and thus:
...(1) There is no definitive chronology here.
...(2) How many times did I do each of those things? Unknown.


Genesis 1 is topical because:
...(1) God says, Let there be light - once? Or 7 times? Presumably at LEAST seven times but only mentioned once. See item 2 above.
...(2) WHEN are each of His statements fulfilled? Unknown chronology.


Genesis 2 is almost certainly topical as well because, for one thing, the six days are here subsumed into the "day" (the period) of creation (Genesis 2:4).

At verse 5, the Hebrew word can mean earth or land:

"5 And no plant of the field was yet in the [land]".

What land? Moses is zooming in on Adam and Eve. The "land" probably refers to their immediate vicinity (perhaps a small region containing the Garden of Eden).

"5 And no plant of the field was yet in the [land]...there was not a man to till the ground".

This refers to farming. That's the CONTEXT of the Genesis 2 narrative. When we get to verse 9:

"9 And out of the ground made Jehovah God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight"

You say this contradicts the Genesis 1 account? Three problems:
...(1) You can't necessarily pull a verse out of a farming context and apply it to all creation.
...(2) Genesis 1 is probably more topical than chronological.
...(3) As you know, a statement in Hebrew like "God did X" could mean, "God (previously) HAD done X". Here again, no definitive chronology.


Correct. The seventh Daylight is everlasting in my literal reading.



I categorically reject that notion. An indefatigable God is a Platonic fabrication contradicted by the Incarnation where God (Jesus) grew weary.


False dichotomy. The term "day" can summarize an entire period. "In the day when Britain ruled the nations..."


Yes, God has anchored the stars in a solid dome in my literal reading. You don't really want to take Newton's theory of gravity literally, do you? Newton himself didn't, as I'm sure you know.

Conclusion: Moses uses topical language to summarize the creation in Genesis 1. He again uses topical language in Genesis 2 to re-summarize, adding this time a few more details by zooming in on Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Edin.


This post was just from a cursory glance at the text. These days my health is too poor to do any research. Chances are if I missed anything, however, some literal apologist already covered it.

And I'm not insisting that Genesis 1 is literal. I'm merely OPINING that it is. Reasonable arguments exist on both sides of the debate.

You've decided upon a non-literal reading. Fine. In that case I trust you've fully prayed about whether you should really be trying to establish biblical contradictions in the minds of God's people.

One other thing the the ancients and most of mankind were just beginning their own crafts of writing and learning to read what they wrote. Remembering what the symbols stand for and learning to read what they wrote - I bet that was a very, very hard task. Besides they had no literal way of writing especially in comparison to the systems of the technologically / literally correct ways of the educated people of these modern times.

British Library

 

[BobRyan]

Creationism - Everything was created in 6 literal days. The creation was in 4004 BC. That what my preacher says.

IT is almost what the Bible says -- but you have an error in that statement from the Bible POV.

The Bible only describes the formatting of planet Earth and all life on it - as well as creation of Sun and moon within those 7 days of creation week. Only TWO lights created on day four - not a zillion and two.

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.

That is getting closer but still not 100% accurate.

1. Gen 2:5-24 ends the second review (expanded detail) for the Gen 1:3-2:4 first "account".

2. Gen 1:3-2:4 is a Time boxed chronological sequence
3. Gen 2:5-24 is not a Time boxed chronological sequence rather it simply "adds detail to the sequence already given.
3.a so in the Gen 2:5-24 details there is no air, no fish, no sun no moon etc.
3.b in the timeboxed sequence we have all those details but there is no marriage, no order in which man vs woman is created, no naming of animals, no garden of Eden, no tree of life no forbidden tree.

But when the the details in 2 are added to the sequence of Genesis 1 - we have the complete creationist Bible-based picture.

4. The "Legal code" of Ex 20:11 points specifically to the end of the 7 day sequence in Gen 2:1-3 arguing for 7 literal days as are the days in Ex 20:8-11. No way to jam "Darwinism" into Moses' text a if Moses or the newly freed slaves from Egypt were "Darwinists"

 

[BobRyan]

One other thing the the ancients and most of mankind were just beginning their own crafts of writing and learning to read what they wrote.

yet another reason why jamming darwinism into Moses' text does not work - neither he nor his readers were darwinists.

The "Legal code" of Ex 20:11 points specifically to the end of the 7 day sequence in Gen 2:1-3 arguing for 7 literal days as are the days in Ex 20:8-11.

I'm an OEC. I believe in six literal days - six long Daylights stretching at least the 4 billion years of the earths creation, perhaps even the full 13 billion years.

There is no way Moses or his readers were jamming such convoluted ideas into that text.

This is not just the view of a Bible-believing creationist - it is also the view of the most elite scholars of Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities even in cases where they themselves are atheists. IT is the simple matter of who is writing the text and what the words say to that generation.

IT is one thing to say "I don't believe what the Bible says on this subject - I prefer to believe something else" it is another thing to say "the Bible itself says something only a darwinist must imagine no matter what you see written in the text and all scholars of the Bible get this wrong" or something to that effect.

 

[JAL]

yet another reason why jamming darwinism into Moses' text does not work - neither he nor his readers were darwinists.

The "Legal code" of Ex 20:11 points specifically to the end of the 7 day sequence in Gen 2:1-3 arguing for 7 literal days as are the days in Ex 20:8-11.



There is no way Moses or his readers were jamming such convoluted ideas into that text.

This is not just the view of a Bible-believing creationist - it is also the view of the most elite scholars of Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities even in cases where they themselves are atheists. IT is the simple matter of who is writing the text and what the words say to that generation.

IT is one thing to say "I don't believe what the Bible says on this subject - I prefer to believe something else" it is another thing to say "the Bible itself says something only a darwinist must imagine no matter what you see written in the text and all scholars of the Bible get this wrong" or something to that effect.

Longs days are a logical necessity if God merits praise for creation. Only one possible definition of merit:

Merit is a status attained by laboring/suffering for a righteous cause over an extended period of time.

The cross is a perfect example - it merits no praise without labor/suffering.

Keep in mind that we labor/suffer 50 years. That's merit. Who knows how long the angels labored/suffered against the agony of temptation. That's merit.

Since God merits exponentially more praise than we do, He must have labored /suffered exponentially longer than we do. This is not the infinite God of Platonic theory, who is so powerful that everything is, for Him, effortlessly devoid of suffering. Such a God is lazy and unaccomplished. Merits nothing. MORE THAN THAT, He is a colossal jerk because He expects the highest praise while His creatures do the real work.

In truth, Yahweh isn't the jerk painted by the church for the last 2,000 years. Sorry to disappoint you. Sorry He let you down. You can read my definition of Yahweh at post 15 on another thread.

 

[BobRyan]

Longs days are a logical necessity if God merits praise for creation

Not true -- (unless of course you have a case to make that every human on planet Earth can make all of life on Earth plus the sun and moon in 7 days - and so this is not really that unusual or praiseworthy).

As it is - you are introducing the odd one-off idea that if an infinite being does anything at all that is wonderful and amazing --it is not to be praised unless he "suffers" while doing it.

And acceptance of that sort of reasoning - is not a "given" for the rest of mankind, so I am not sure why you keep "assuming" it is even a remotely accepted idea..

"Merit is a status attained by suffering"

So while that is a good example of "you quoting you" as your source - I don't think you can simply "Assume" it is something that we would take as a "given" as opposed to "mere speculation in the extreme".

You have free will of course and can wildly speculate as you please - but you keep stating it as if this is some sort of reasoning we all accept when it comes to our view of a being who has infinite power and infinite capability

 

[JAL]

Not true -- (unless of course you have a case to make that every human on planet Earth can make all of life on Earth plus the sun and moon in 7 days - and so this is not really that unusual or praiseworthy).

As it is - you are introducing the odd one-off idea that if an infinite being does anything at all that is wonderful and amazing --it is not to be praised unless he "suffers" while doing it.

And acceptance of that sort of reasoning - is not a "given" for the rest of mankind, so I am not sure why you keep "assuming" it is even a remotely accepted idea..

"Merit is a status attained by suffering"

So while that is a good example of "you quoting you" as your source - I don't think you can simply "Assume" it is something that we would take as a "given" as opposed to "mere speculation in the extreme".

You have free will of course and can wildly speculate as you please - but you keep stating it as if this is some sort of reasoning we all accept when it comes to our view of a being who has infinite power and infinite capability

I debated this with you on another thread and countered any objections. Not sure I will carry on again here.

"Merit is a status attained by suffering"

So while that is a good example of "you quoting you" as your source - I don't think you can simply "Assume" it is something that we would take as a "given" as opposed to "mere speculation in the extreme".

It's not "my" view - it is YOUR view too. You're just in denial - as if the cross didn't already prove my case. Almost every sermon in the last 2,000 years trades on my merit-formula. Imagine two sons.

...(1). The first son is born with the highest IQ on earth. Laziest sloth you've ever met but, because he's so smart, he seizes on a couple of investments in his childhood. Filthy rich.
...(2). The other son has a low IQ but labors/suffers for decades to become wealthy.

Which son has attained more merit?

You won't give me a straight answer on this, you'll deflect because you know I'm right.

I'll say it again: the definition of a jerk DOES NOT CHANGE. Your portrait of God extrapolates to a jerk.

 

[JAL]

@BobRyan

Let's be honest about the main reason you dislike my view. You're an SDA determined to convince everyone that God rested for a 24-hour period named "The Sabbath". This automatically makes you an adversary of seven long Days/Daylights.

 

[JAL]

@BobRyan

Although we are saved by the cross, nonetheless God will, on judgment day, evaluate/appraise our individual contributions - obviously on the basis of my merit-formula.

YOUR God is a hypocrite who evaluates US on our hard work/suffering while gobbling up the highest praise for His own LACK of work/suffering. Does God's holiness merit praise? Two choices here:

...(1) Praise me because I am immutably holy, without any efforts.
...(2) Praise me because I labored/suffered to BECOME holy.

And we both know which motto betokens a jerk.

 

[JAL]

@BobRyan

Suppose I say to my son, "Follow my example of working hard for a living", but I've never worked/suffered a day in my life. That makes me a total liar and a hypocrite, right? Enter Exodus 20:11 where God commands Israel to aspire to HIS example of working six days.

What kind of a liar and hypocrite does NO REAL WORK for six 24-hour days, then demands a VACATION on the seventh day, and then commands His subordinates (Exodus 20:11) to follow His example of work? Meaning they are supposed to work six days a week for fifty years?