Creationism and Theology

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes. That is the case.
As most TE believe, this was a separate event from Genesis 1.
In Genesis 1, male and female are made in the image of Elohim.
In Genesis 2 a man is created from the dust of the earth, and then a women was made from the rib of Adam.
These were two different beings, howbeit they are both referred to as men. I believe the men and women of Gen 1 came into being via the same process as all land animals. They may have been the beings that we are finding in fossils and caves. They were the apex of evolution on the earth. It was then, in verse 26 of Gen 1 that Elohim "made" these "men and women" into their image. I interpret this to mean:

"let us take the men and women the the earth had brought forth (in verse 24) and make them into our image. Let us make them cognizant and able to grow in intelligence. Let us cause then to evolve beyond their present state to a higher state where they will rule the earth."
They did this, but they did not impart to these men the breathe of God. These men were not able to commune with God or have fellowship. The were evolved beings that could not commune with God. They did not have to fall as Adam and Eve did, as they did not possess a nature that could fall. They may not have even had spirits. Perhaps when Elohim made them into their image they imparted a human spirit to them. Not the same as Adam. So the men and women of Gen 1 are different from the man made in Genesis 2. God breathed life into the man He personally made from the dust in Gen 2, and that breathe was passed to the women He made from the man's rib. He named the man Adam, and Adam named the women Eve because she would pass this life of God to all her children.
Of course there are problems with this interpretation of the events. But that is true with every interpretation of the Genesis account. Virtually every group had a different view. Pick this apart if you like.. I like that because it causes me to pray and think how things may have occurred. There are some things He has chosen not to reveal to us. We may not know this side of heaven. No need to get dogmatic about it on my part.
Better than watching the history channel and TLC.

The problem I have with that is Gen 2 isn't a re-cap of day 6 which it is.

Also, what happened to all the evolved people from day 1? Are they still ruling over the fish, birds and other animals?
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes and no. It's pretty obvious that we inherently learn by trial and error. So it's obvious that we are going to make mistakes, which in moral issues wold be sin.

It's not our moral imperfection that's the issue, but rather the fact that there were never perfect human beings. It's really the unfallen state that can't ever have actually been present. The fallen one is all too visible. We can still regard the unfallen state as God's plan for us, which we can experience through Christ.

Of course the traditional idea of original sin doesn't really fit with Gen 2 and 3 anyway. Calling Adam and Eve morally perfect before the fall makes no sense at all. They sinned the first time they had a choice to make. They were just like we are. This story was really about how death entered the world, not how sin entered the world. That how Paul uses it. (That's not historically true either, but at least let's get the intended meaning of the story right.)

Of course I reject the idea that we start with theology and reject things about the world when they aren't consistent with our theology. That's going about things backwards. It's just as likely to lead to bad theology as bad science.

I'm having trouble with this statement "It's really the unfallen state that can't ever have actually been present."
The Genesis account has Adam and Eve in the garden in an unfallen state. That would contradict what you said.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I'm having trouble with this statement "It's really the unfallen state that can't ever have actually been present."
The Genesis account has Adam and Eve in the garden in an unfallen state. That would contradict what you said.
It can't actually have happened that way because we know how humanity actually originated.
 
Upvote 0

SavedByGrace3

Jesus is Lord of ALL! (Not asking permission)
Supporter
Jun 6, 2002
19,640
3,658
Midlands
Visit site
✟551,529.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The problem I have with that is Gen 2 isn't a re-cap of day 6 which it is.
Also, what happened to all the evolved people from day 1? Are they still ruling over the fish, birds and other animals?
The men and women of Gen 1 crossed with the descendants of Adam and Eve. Hence our genetic link with them.

I disagree that chapter 2 is a rehash of Gen 1. This would create many contradictions. Some obvious:

In the first story the events take six days In the second story it all occurs in one day.
In the first story man (and woman) are made at the same time. In the second story man and women are made separate.
In the first story all the plants and animals are made before man and women. In the second story the plants and animals are made after man. And the women is made after the plants and animals.
In the first story all living things are "brought forth" from the land and the sea. In the second story the plants and animals are created whole and by a creative act of God
In the first story the events are earth wide. In the second story the events take place in Eden.
In the first story Elohim (God or gods) is/are the agent(s). In the second story it is Yahweh, the one Lord of all.

In Genesis 2, God planted a garden and then placed Adam in the garden. This isn’t God creating vegetation for the mankind that the earth brought for in Genesis 1. God already did that in His third act of creation. He’s simply planting a garden to provide his new Adam with everything that he will need so that he won’t have to till the soil for his food. And He planted this garden AFTER creating Adam, NOT BEFORE creating Adam, as He had done for the “first man,” when GOD first created vegetation on the earth.

Like I said. I do not want to disrupt anyone's faith. With some people YEC is such an element of their belief system that causing doubts would harm their faith. I do not want that to happen to anyone. Be at rest with your faith. I am glad for you.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jamsie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 2, 2017
2,211
1,279
73
Vermont
✟324,912.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The question is should the understanding our faith be defined by what I perceive through my natural senses or should what I perceive and sense in the natural be defined and understood thought the eyes of my faith?

God has endowed us with senses and reason, that they can be abused is not the point, but rather that without such we could not come to know God through Christ Jesus. If we can't trust either our senses or reason coherently then we should all be skeptics for everything is a mere guess.

I don't want to stray from the OP so for your consideration.
As has been suggested before that a certain humility and openness should be required to any thoughts on Genesis/Creation. That reasoned people can arrive at differing thoughts on the various issues related in Genesis 1 (and in contrast with Genesis 2) inform us that there is no absolute certainty but only opinion/interpretation involved. The person that would suggest absolute certainty on these specific issues is merely fooling themselves, and given more to arrogance than to scholarly authority. Consider Augustine -
"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of the Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." That scripture states that we can gain knowledge, understanding because his creation declares - proclaims - can be clearly seen gives validity to our senses and reason.
*Without our senses and reason is it even possible to know God to any extent?​

A general look at Genesis 1 one observes a very consistent construction. “And God said, ...” clearly this establishes that all of creation was actualized by God’s spoken command or fiat. Each day begins with those very words, so that the commands of God were the source of all creation, the sole and only operative agent. (Psalm 33:6 – Heb. 11:3 – 2 Peter 3:5) One will also note that His commands were all sufficient certainly requiring no further action on God’s part.
*How is not so that by denying God's decrees as efficacious one questions God's omnipotence?

So if God's commands are the sole agency of creation it would be logical that what follows the fiat must be explanatory. As noted the efficacy of the command would involve the fulfillment. Any "It was so" would establish the fulfillment based solely on his decree. The structure would strongly suggest that there is a command(s), fulfillment, explanatory comments, and the particular day.
*Would it not suggest that God's command was insufficient if he had to DO something rather than SAY something?

One will note as in Gen. 1:11 the command/fiat is directed directly at the land/ground/earth. "Let the land" is so clearly mediate by directing the land (created matter) to bring forth or produce. One should note what isn't stated "Let there be vegetation..." which would have assured the meaning to be of immediacy. As on other command days the fiat is direct to the land or water... "Let the land bring forth or produce..." not "Let there be living creatures...". We do know from passages in scripture that "all came from dust and to dust return" so that "Let the land produce..." has support throughout scripture.
*Could not God set in motion all of the laws for the incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced?
*Why is the belief that God invoked processes so abhorrent to some?

The theological implications of Genesis 1 are quite simple "In the beginning God...", that is the primary theological point. As to the age of the earth question what prohibits each day to be based upon the decree invoked without reference to the time for the fiat to be ultimately manifested? I believe 2 Peter 3:8 is figurative not literal with the intent to assert that God is timeless, so why do we attempt to put time limits on him? So in six days God created everything, not necessary to be consecutive, not necessary to be of specific duration...each day represents the fiat(s). Some call it the "creation week" the Bible does not.

Further, Genesis 1:2 raises questions, Genesis 2 raises questions about Genesis 1, and so forth. That one should defend their belief in this is one thing, that one should take a myopic, strident, and closed view is just foolish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SavedByGrace3
Upvote 0

Johan_1988

Active Member
Jun 17, 2019
321
176
36
Durban
✟30,451.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
God has endowed us with senses and reason, that they can be abused is not the point, but rather that without such we could not come to know God through Christ Jesus. If we can't trust either our senses or reason coherently then we should all be skeptics for everything is a mere guess.

I don't want to stray from the OP so for your consideration.
As has been suggested before that a certain humility and openness should be required to any thoughts on Genesis/Creation. That reasoned people can arrive at differing thoughts on the various issues related in Genesis 1 (and in contrast with Genesis 2) inform us that there is no absolute certainty but only opinion/interpretation involved. The person that would suggest absolute certainty on these specific issues is merely fooling themselves, and given more to arrogance than to scholarly authority. Consider Augustine -
"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of the Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." That scripture states that we can gain knowledge, understanding because his creation declares - proclaims - can be clearly seen gives validity to our senses and reason.
*Without our senses and reason is it even possible to know God to any extent?

A general look at Genesis 1 one observes a very consistent construction. “And God said, ...” clearly this establishes that all of creation was actualized by God’s spoken command or fiat. Each day begins with those very words, so that the commands of God were the source of all creation, the sole and only operative agent. (Psalm 33:6 – Heb. 11:3 – 2 Peter 3:5) One will also note that His commands were all sufficient certainly requiring no further action on God’s part.
*How is not so that by denying God's decrees as efficacious one questions God's omnipotence?

So if God's commands are the sole agency of creation it would be logical that what follows the fiat must be explanatory. As noted the efficacy of the command would involve the fulfillment. Any "It was so" would establish the fulfillment based solely on his decree. The structure would strongly suggest that there is a command(s), fulfillment, explanatory comments, and the particular day.
*Would it not suggest that God's command was insufficient if he had to DO something rather than SAY something?

One will note as in Gen. 1:11 the command/fiat is directed directly at the land/ground/earth. "Let the land" is so clearly mediate by directing the land (created matter) to bring forth or produce. One should note what isn't stated "Let there be vegetation..." which would have assured the meaning to be of immediacy. As on other command days the fiat is direct to the land or water... "Let the land bring forth or produce..." not "Let there be living creatures...". We do know from passages in scripture that "all came from dust and to dust return" so that "Let the land produce..." has support throughout scripture.
*Could not God set in motion all of the laws for the incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced?
*Why is the belief that God invoked processes so abhorrent to some?

The theological implications of Genesis 1 are quite simple "In the beginning God...", that is the primary theological point. As to the age of the earth question what prohibits each day to be based upon the decree invoked without reference to the time for the fiat to be ultimately manifested? I believe 2 Peter 3:8 is figurative not literal with the intent to assert that God is timeless, so why do we attempt to put time limits on him? So in six days God created everything, not necessary to be consecutive, not necessary to be of specific duration...each day represents the fiat(s). Some call it the "creation week" the Bible does not.

Further, Genesis 1:2 raises questions, Genesis 2 raises questions about Genesis 1, and so forth. That one should defend their belief in this is one thing, that one should take a myopic, strident, and closed view is just foolish.

Hi, a lot of words there. I'm sorry if I'm sounding as though I am trying to force my point. I merely making a point, note my question mark. I'm talking also about discerning things according to the unction of the Holy Spirit.

Making the teachings in the bible complex hurts new comers to Christ and also causes division in the church. Making it simple for me is the best, because when someone has a question I have an answer.
Unbelievers revel in the fact that a lot of Christians cannot trust every word in the Bible and many of the new translations adds a lot of confusion since you can point out the differences. Not that you should care what they think ,but think about what kind of example you are setting. I'm not saying it's bad to seek answers to questions you may have. There are a lot more theories out there that will not clash with the biblical account, Dakes has an excellent explanation on this topic. When it comes to evolution you have to consider the source of the theory. It was demonically inspired to turn people away from faith in God in Charles Darwin whom was merely observing certain adaptations creatures have developed over time because of environmental changes from changing habitats.

I've made an effort to explain scripture with scripture, not my intellect. My intellect is to memorize facts from scripture , compare them and ask God for wisdom. The Holy Spirit is our teacher:
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
He gives us the mind of Christ to understand the Spiritual and even the natural since the natural was birthed from the Spiritual.

Your opinions are yours and I respect that. But you know what helped me is literal interpretation, not naively, but studying it carefully by viewing the meanings of the original language it was written in and the context of what is written before and after. I listen to sermons which have correct doctrine to add knowledge to myself.

God bless and good luck in your endeavor I hope you find the truth.
 
Upvote 0

Johan_1988

Active Member
Jun 17, 2019
321
176
36
Durban
✟30,451.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
The fossil record including the dinosaurs ....as well as the geological column was a result of the world wide flood that destroyed the earth during Noahs days. That was the state of judgement.

That I also happen to agree with that to an extent. But I do not believe its the first.
 
Upvote 0

Jamsie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 2, 2017
2,211
1,279
73
Vermont
✟324,912.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Hi, a lot of words there. I'm sorry if I'm sounding as though I am trying to force my point. I merely making a point, note my question mark. I'm talking also about discerning things according to the unction of the Holy Spirit.

Making the teachings in the bible complex hurts new comers to Christ and also causes division in the church. Making it simple for me is the best, because when someone has a question I have an answer.
Unbelievers revel in the fact that a lot of Christians cannot trust every word in the Bible and many of the new translations adds a lot of confusion since you can point out the differences. Not that you should care what they think ,but think about what kind of example you are setting. I'm not saying it's bad to seek answers to questions you may have. There are a lot more theories out there that will not clash with the biblical account, Dakes has an excellent explanation on this topic. When it comes to evolution you have to consider the source of the theory. It was demonically inspired to turn people away from faith in God in Charles Darwin whom was merely observing certain adaptations creatures have developed over time because of environmental changes from changing habitats.

I've made an effort to explain scripture with scripture, not my intellect. My intellect is to memorize facts from scripture , compare them and ask God for wisdom. The Holy Spirit is our teacher:
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
He gives us the mind of Christ to understand the Spiritual and even the natural since the natural was birthed from the Spiritual.

Your opinions are yours and I respect that. But you know what helped me is literal interpretation, not naively, but studying it carefully by viewing the meanings of the original language it was written in and the context of what is written before and after. I listen to sermons which have correct doctrine to add knowledge to myself.

God bless and good luck in your endeavor I hope you find the truth.

Hi Johan - The word of God is quite layered so that one may approach it at different levels. (I would note that I'm not sure how my specifics to Gen. 1 are not literal?) I would also note that there is a qualitative difference between the gospel message and details that seem in conflict with what we know about the world and universe through science. Understand that anti-science and anti-reason can also be and are a major stumbling block to many as if there is a choice to be made between the two, when there is not.

Yes, we are entitled to our opinions and perspectives. I posted with questions so that one might respond to counter my plain reading of Genesis 1. Be that as it may...it is not an issue of salvation, there are many Christian issues argued, debated, and discussed from varying opinions right here on these boards. I have yet to find a solid arguments against the Command day position (Just to name it something), but then it is an exercise in study not salvation.

Blessings to you Johan....
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Hi, a lot of words there. I'm sorry if I'm sounding as though I am trying to force my point. I merely making a point, note my question mark. I'm talking also about discerning things according to the unction of the Holy Spirit.
It doesn't take a lot of words to say that the Bible is the record of God's dealings with Israel and the early church. On the other hand, inerrancy produces sufficient problems that you need whole books full of improbable interpretations to deal with problems.
 
Upvote 0

Johan_1988

Active Member
Jun 17, 2019
321
176
36
Durban
✟30,451.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Hi, I'm certainly not anti- science. I'm a computer repair man by trade,very intellectual also. My room is filled with all kinds of electronic appliances and gadgetry I even watch scientific documentaries sometimes. I do however discard information that I believe is contrary to my faith.

God bless you, hope you find the truth you seek.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Johan_1988

Active Member
Jun 17, 2019
321
176
36
Durban
✟30,451.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
It doesn't take a lot of words to say that the Bible is the record of God's dealings with Israel and the early church. On the other hand, inerrancy produces sufficient problems that you need whole books full of improbable interpretations to deal with problems.

Sure I agree. There should be a point though where you can find something that agrees the most with scripture and stick to it.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The men and women of Gen 1 crossed with the descendants of Adam and Eve. Hence our genetic link with them.

I disagree that chapter 2 is a rehash of Gen 1. This would create many contradictions. Some obvious:

Well lets see....

In the first story the events take six days In the second story it all occurs in one day.

The second story is about the creation of Adam and Even on day 6 during the time of creation.

In the first story man (and woman) are made at the same time. In the second story man and women are made separate.

In the overall account man and women are made on day 6. the Bible doesn't say if it was at the same time or not. When we look at day six in chapter 2 we learn Adam was formed first the Eve was formed second. Chapter 2 sheds a little light on chapter 1.

In the first story all the plants and animals are made before man and women. In the second story the plants and animals are made after man. And the women is made after the plants and animals.

Plants are made on day 3 and animals on 5 and 6. The plants mentioned in chapter 2 pertain to the garden God has planted. The bible also indicates the animals had already been made.

In the first story all living things are "brought forth" from the land and the sea. In the second story the plants and animals are created whole and by a creative act of God
In the first story the events are earth wide. In the second story the events take place in Eden.
In the first story Elohim (God or gods) is/are the agent(s). In the second story it is Yahweh, the one Lord of all.

As I have said...chapter 2 is a re-cap of day 6. The primary focus is on the creation of Adam and Eve and what cGod has created is brought over from chapter 1.

In Genesis 2, God planted a garden and then placed Adam in the garden. This isn’t God creating vegetation for the mankind that the earth brought for in Genesis 1. God already did that in His third act of creation. He’s simply planting a garden to provide his new Adam with everything that he will need so that he won’t have to till the soil for his food. And He planted this garden AFTER creating Adam, NOT BEFORE creating Adam, as He had done for the “first man,” when GOD first created vegetation on the earth.

God made vegetation twice. Day 3 and when He planted the garden.

Like I said. I do not want to disrupt anyone's faith. With some people YEC is such an element of their belief system that causing doubts would harm their faith. I do not want that to happen to anyone. Be at rest with your faith. I am glad for you.

It appears your faith has already been disrupted and pretty much present the arguments the atheist use. You fail to realize those arguments have all been debunked years ago...but still use them.

Once again .....with your interpretation original sin is done away with. Good work.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It doesn't take a lot of words to say that the Bible is the record of God's dealings with Israel and the early church. On the other hand, inerrancy produces sufficient problems that you need whole books full of improbable interpretations to deal with problems.

It's also funny how the Theo-Evo camp filters the Bible through text books which contain improbable interpretations of geology and biology.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Johan_1988
Upvote 0

Johan_1988

Active Member
Jun 17, 2019
321
176
36
Durban
✟30,451.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
It's also funny how the Theo-Evo camp filters the Bible through text books which contain improbable interpretations of geology and biology.

Yes I truly agree with that. Those scientific studies are not done with God in mind. All sciences: Geology,biology and physics should be viewed in the context of God's word not the other way around.

But let's pray for them to find clarity, I love all of them from the heart of God, that's why I always bless them, remember:"1Cor 8:1.......... Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: -57
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jamsie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 2, 2017
2,211
1,279
73
Vermont
✟324,912.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
God made vegetation twice. Day 3 and when He planted the garden.

So what you are saying is that since God had to make vegetation twice then obviously Genesis 2:1 is not true, for the earth was not "completed"? What does the "had" in Genesis 2:8 suggest? Is to plant the same as to create or make? What does it mean that God put or placed the man in the Garden?

Again, God took the man and put/placed him in the Garden, so where was Adam formed? Adam was required and necessary to work the garden and care for it...how long do you think that took? How long to name all of the animals and birds? Do you believe that the name given to each animal/bird by Adam was meaningful?

Do you believe that we have no knowledge of geology, biology, and physics that is not contained in the Bible?
 
Upvote 0

Jamsie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 2, 2017
2,211
1,279
73
Vermont
✟324,912.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Yes I truly agree with that. Those scientific studies are not done with God in mind. All sciences: Geology,biology and physics should be viewed in the context of God's word not the other way around.

But let's pray for them to find clarity, I love all of them from the heart of God, that's why I always bless them, remember:"1Cor 8:1.......... Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth."

So, according to you all of the various discoveries by the sciences are all because they did not have God in mind? Yet every day of your life you are immersed in the findings of science, and that is an undeniable fact. In other words your ideology is that if not stated plainly in the Bible then it has no validity?

Chesterton said “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.” I would suggest one could say the same about scripture, it has been read without due consideration and cerebration, often.

The attack on science is also an attack on scripture. One must disregard not only what is written but deny the many passages that speak to our ability to understand God's creation - Natural Revelation. This was noted previously but ignored and yet it is a valid point...one can demonize science and but not dismiss "appearance of age", God having physical qualities like humans, claim any belief other than their own eviscerates particular Christian principles, and not honestly admitting that the Bible is a book of Theology not a book of science.
The conflict arises not from a seeking of truth as far as we can know or a considered reading of scriptures but from an inflexible stultifying idea that it must be my way, my narrow interpretation. The fact that the sun does not revolve around the earth does not negate the truth of the Bible.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So what you are saying is that since God had to make vegetation twice then obviously Genesis 2:1 is not true, for the earth was not "completed"?

Once again, Gen 2 is a re-cap of day 6. I thought you knew that.

What does the "had" in Genesis 2:8 suggest? Is to plant the same as to create or make? What does it mean that God put or placed the man in the Garden?

It's just saying what God had done.

Gen 2 is a re-cap of day 6

Again, God took the man and put/placed him in the Garden, so where was Adam formed? Adam was required and necessary to work the garden and care for it...how long do you think that took? How long to name all of the animals and birds? Do you believe that the name given to each animal/bird by Adam was meaningful?

Do you believe that we have no knowledge of geology, biology, and physics that is not contained in the Bible?[/QUOTE]

What does the Bible say?
 
Upvote 0