The plural anonymous account of the creation of men and women (Gen 1) and the singular personal creation of Adam and of Eve (Gen 2) complement each other. They also provide explanation as to who Adams sons might have married rather than their own sisters.
You can't have an account that says that men and women were made and then have an account that says God made only
one man. That isn't complementary. Either God made a bunch of people or He made one man followed by one woman. You can't have both.
Yes, the source of wives for Cain and Seth are a problem if you are following the Genesis 2-3 account. But you don't get to solve it by invoking lots of created people when Genesis 2 is explicit about there being only one man and one woman created.
2:4 This is the account of the heavens and
the earth when they were created when the Lord God made the earth and heavens.
This is playing with a translation to English; you are picking a translation. In fact, I don't even recognize which translation you are using. Which translation are you using? The KJV translation -- which tried to follow the Hebrew -- says:
"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"
Young's Literal Translation has it as: "These [are] births of the heavens and of the earth in their being prepared,
in the day of Jehovah God's making earth and heavens"
Notice what I bolded. This phrase "in the day" is the translation of the Hebrew word "beyom". "beyom" is a modification of the Hebrew word "yom". Yom usually means "day" but can also mean an indefined period. Modifying it with the prefix "be" limits "yom" to a 24 hour period. "Beyom" is used in Genesis 2:2 and 2:3 to limit the 7th day to a 24 hour period. And then it appears again in Genesis 2:4, limiting creation of the "heavens and the earth" to a single 24 hour period. Of course, in Genesis 1 it takes at least 4 days to make the heavens and the earth.
No that's not what the passage says , Adam began to die that day, there were mitigating circumstances in the text why he was not summararily executed and why even in the punishment God gave there was hope of eventual redemption.
The passage does say that. In Hebrew it is the same word "beyom". Adam did die "in the day". He died spiritually because he was cut off from God.
In the punishments given in Genesis 3:17-19 there is no hope at all of redemption. From those punishments. However, if Adam did die spiritually, then yes, there is hope for eventual redemption for that type of death.
If we and creation are broken and changed from its previous condition even consistent observations are distorted by that fact
1. There is nothing in Genesis 3L:17-19 to say that we or creation are completely broken and there is no connection to
any previous condition. The consequences of Adam's disobedience is very limited and very specific. You have to be reading a
lot into the text that isn't there to come up with the idea that all creation is changed from its previous condition.
2. Even YECs do not agree with you on this. For them, Flood Geology is a connection to a very real, albeit young, past. The Flood is supposed to have deposited all those rock layers. That, of course, happened after the fall and thus is not distorted by it. BUT, the evidence of the rocks says there was no flood. So the rocks must be telling us what is really there.
You go way beyond YEC and say that what we see in God's Creation has no connection to what God created! Wow. Talk about trying to get rid of evidence you don't like! In order to keep an interpretation of the Bible! Mindlight, it is time to ask yourself what you are defending and who you worship: are you defending God or your interpretation of the Bible? What is more important: God or your interpretation of the Bible?
Since we are all born steeped in sin it is fairly safe to say that we all die for our own sins.
EVen Paul does not have us "steeped in sin". According to Paul in Romans 5, in order to sin you must break the Law. A newborn baby cannot do that.
There is no contradiction here. As we share in the nature of Christ we begin to be redeemed from the Adamic natures that will drag us all to the grave.
I actually agree partly with you here, but not because of our "Adamic natures" like you are using it. We sin not because there was a literal Adam, but because of the real message Genesis 2-3 is trying to tell us:
each of us is going to disobey God. Yes, we all have an overwhelming behavior pattern of disobeying God, but this is not due to Adam, but due to the fact God used evolution by natural selection to create us. Adam and Eve's disobedience stemmed from selfishness: they placed their desires above God's. Natural selection picks traits that are beneficial to the individual. NS is selfish. It cannot pick for pure altruism. So yes, we are all inherently selfish and place our desires above God's. We got that way not because of a literal Adam, but by natural selection. Genesis 2-3 can be looked at as an attempt to state this to people who did not have the background and knowledge to understand the full situation.
Our hope is in the one who passed through the grave and with whom we shall be raised.
I generally agree. Altho Jesus is already raised, so we will not be raised with him. He preceded us. We might be raised to the same state that he enjoys. But then, not really. After all, Jesus is the son of God. We aren't.
