Genesis 1 and 2 -- chronological order

[ivebeenshown]

1st day: Light from darkness. Formless and deep.
2nd day: Division of 'waters'. Heaven.
3rd day: formation of the Earth and seas. Grass, herbs, fruit trees.
4th day: God set bodies of light in the Heaven.
5th day: creatures.
6th day: man and woman.

There seems to be two points of issue in Genesis 2: was the man formed before the Garden of Eden? Were the creatures formed after man?

There seems to be three ways to interpret this:
1. It's a contradiction and the bible is useless.
2. We can lump the chronological sequence of Genesis 1 into one big metaphor and do the same for Genesis 2 so that the chronology doesn't matter.
3. We can view Genesis 2:8 and 2:19 as containing pluperfect verbs: which causes Genesis 2 to fit the timeline given in Genesis 1.

Now someone had written, and I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but they wrote that Genesis 2 uses 'waw-consecutive'. This means that since it goes 'and this, and that, and this, and that, and...' it is all in that specific chronological order.

However, read this paragraph.

Paulie was a parrot.
And her owner bought a house.
And her owner bought a cage, and put her in the cage in the house.
And her owner bought some food, and let the parrot decide which was her favorite food.​

The 'ands' don't necessarily imply any certain chronology. Do we assume that the owner of Paulie bought her before the house, the cage, and the food? That wouldn't be a very responsible owner, to bring home a parrot without having a cage to have her in, or food to feed her with. A new parent is bound to have clothes and diapers and a crib before the child is actually born.

What if there was a paragraph before that?

First, the owner bought a house.
Second, the owner bought a birdcage.
Third, the owner bought some food.
Fourth, the owner bought a parrot and put her in the cage.

Paulie was a parrot.
And her owner bought a house.
And her owner bought a cage, and put her in the cage in the house.
And her owner bought some food, and let her decide which was her favorite food.​

We can then tell that some parts of the second paragraph aren't meant to imply a perfect chronological order. The 'ands' just give other details -- there is no 'and then.'

Let's look at the book of 1 Kings.

1 Kings 6:
14So Solomon built the house, and finished it.
15And he built the walls of the house within with boards of cedar, both the floor of the house, and the walls of the ceiling: and he covered them on the inside with wood, and covered the floor of the house with planks of fir.​

So he finished building the house..... THEN built the walls of it?

1 Kings 7:1:
But Solomon was building his own house thirteen years, and he finished all his house.

1 Kings 7:13:
And king Solomon sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre.
14He was a widow's son of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was a man of Tyre, a worker in brass: and he was filled with wisdom, and understanding, and cunning to work all works in brass. And he came to king Solomon, and wrought all his work.
15For he cast two pillars of brass, of eighteen cubits high apiece: and a line of twelve cubits did compass either of them about.​

So what's the deal? Is the house finished or not, since he is sending for some pillars to be built? It uses the same 'and this' type of narrative. The building of a house or palace with such fine details as cubits and walls and pillars is obviously not just a big metaphor for something else.

The resolution to these passages are pluperfects.

 

[Papias]

That's why it is especially useful to look to God's other revelation, his creation, to resolve questions like that.

God's other revelation is clear in that the Genesis is not a literally correct chronology. For instance, the trees are formed on day 3, and the first creatures in the water on day 5. However, geology shows us that the first water creatures were in the Precambrian, well before any trees existed on land. The key is to use all of God's revelations.


Papias

 

[Mr Dave]

What about option 4? Read it as the early Biblical scholars did.
As per Philo of Alexandria, every part of the Bible has a literal meaning (which speaks of things that have happened) and an allegorical one (which communicates deeper meanings). When there is a contradiction, this is a clue as to how to interpret the passage; reading it allegorically becomes more important than literally. The contradictions are a message to not take the passage at face-value but to search within the passage for deeper truths.

Your option makes no sense and would not have done to practically anyone before the 20th century in America with the Scopes trials, and then the birth of the modern creationist movement in the 60s.

 

[ivebeenshown]

That's why it is especially useful to look to God's other revelation, his creation, to resolve questions like that.

God's other revelation is clear in that the Genesis is not a literally correct chronology. For instance, the trees are formed on day 3, and the first creatures in the water on day 5. However, geology shows us that the first water creatures were in the Precambrian, well before any trees existed on land. The key is to use all of God's revelations.


Papias

Have you done the exact geological studies that supposedly say there was a 'precambrian' period? Is there anything in the Bible to support such an idea? Or have you just accepted that as truth from other men?

 

[Mr Dave]

Have you done the exact geological studies that supposedly say there was a 'precambrian' period? Is there anything in the Bible to support such an idea? Or have you just accepted that as truth from other men?

Where in the Good Book does it say that we should use nothing but The Bible to understand God's world?

 

[Assyrian]

1st day: Light from darkness. Formless and deep.
2nd day: Division of 'waters'. Heaven.
3rd day: formation of the Earth and seas. Grass, herbs, fruit trees.
4th day: God set bodies of light in the Heaven.
5th day: creatures.
6th day: man and woman.

There seems to be two points of issue in Genesis 2: was the man formed before the Garden of Eden? Were the creatures formed after man?

There seems to be three ways to interpret this:
1. It's a contradiction and the bible is useless.
2. We can lump the chronological sequence of Genesis 1 into one big metaphor and do the same for Genesis 2 so that the chronology doesn't matter.
3. We can view Genesis 2:8 and 2:19 as containing pluperfect verbs: which causes Genesis 2 to fit the timeline given in Genesis 1.

First option is clearly off the table if we Christians with faith in God.
Second option, you talk about metaphors as if they were a bad thing, although I was a literalist myself in the past, this attitude really doesn't make sense for disciples of Jesus who loved to communicate in metaphors parables and allegory.
Third option is not supported by the text, it is reading your theology into the bible rather than letting God's word speak for itself.
There is a fourth option, take the texts at face value and say to the Lord I don't understand how they can say different things.

Now someone had written, and I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but they wrote that Genesis 2 uses 'waw-consecutive'. This means that since it goes 'and this, and that, and this, and that, and...' it is all in that specific chronological order.

However, read this paragraph.

Paulie was a parrot.
And her owner bought a house.
And her owner bought a cage, and put her in the cage in the house.
And her owner bought some food, and let the parrot decide which was her favorite food.​

The 'ands' don't necessarily imply any certain chronology. Do we assume that the owner of Paulie bought her before the house, the cage, and the food? That wouldn't be a very responsible owner, to bring home a parrot without having a cage to have her in, or food to feed her with. A new parent is bound to have clothes and diapers and a crib before the child is actually born.

What if there was a paragraph before that?

First, the owner bought a house.
Second, the owner bought a birdcage.
Third, the owner bought some food.
Fourth, the owner bought a parrot and put her in the cage.

Paulie was a parrot.
And her owner bought a house.
And her owner bought a cage, and put her in the cage in the house.
And her owner bought some food, and let her decide which was her favorite food.​

We can then tell that some parts of the second paragraph aren't meant to imply a perfect chronological order. The 'ands' just give other details -- there is no 'and then.'

Except Polly's story wasn't written in Hebrew using waw consecutives.

Let's look at the book of 1 Kings.

1 Kings 6:
14So Solomon built the house, and finished it.
15And he built the walls of the house within with boards of cedar, both the floor of the house, and the walls of the ceiling: and he covered them on the inside with wood, and covered the floor of the house with planks of fir.​

So he finished building the house..... THEN built the walls of it?

There are a couple of things going on here as far as I can tell. It sound like Solomon’s work on the temple had ground to a halt when it came to pass, the word of the Lord came and encouraged him. 1Kings 6:11 Now the word of the LORD came to Solomon, 12 "Concerning this house that you are building, if you will walk in my statutes … Then we have the text telling us Solomon built the house and finished it, not that it was fully complete when we go on to the next verse, but that spurred on by the word of the Lord, Solomon launched into the final phase of construction, he covered the walls with cedar etc. Keep in mind, the waw consecutive isn’t about how long a verb goes on for, it is about the verbs happening in sequence, the first verb may still be going on when the second starts, in fact they may even start at the same time if the second verb is the logical consequence of the first. So Solomon restarted his work building and completing the house of God, and we go into a long list of all that was involved in this work

1 Kings 7:1:
But Solomon was building his own house thirteen years, and he finished all his house.

1 Kings 7:13:
And king Solomon sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre.
14He was a widow's son of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was a man of Tyre, a worker in brass: and he was filled with wisdom, and understanding, and cunning to work all works in brass. And he came to king Solomon, and wrought all his work.
15For he cast two pillars of brass, of eighteen cubits high apiece: and a line of twelve cubits did compass either of them about.​

So what's the deal? Is the house finished or not, since he is sending for some pillars to be built? It uses the same 'and this' type of narrative. The building of a house or palace with such fine details as cubits and walls and pillars is obviously not just a big metaphor for something else.

Again as far as I can make out, this is all decorative and temple furnishings, the pillars were hollow and the commentaries I have looked at seem to think they were decorative. It sounds like the building was finished when Hiram was brought in to do the bronze work.

The resolution to these passages are pluperfects.

And yet the NIV which translates some of the waw consecutives as pluperfects in Genesis 2 doesn't use the pluperfect here.
(NIV) 1Kings 6:14So Solomon built the temple and completed it. 15 He lined its interior walls with cedar boards, paneling them from the floor of the temple to the ceiling, and covered the floor of the temple with planks of pine.
1Kings 7:1It took Solomon thirteen years, however, to complete the construction of his palace 13King Solomon sent to Tyre and brought Huram, 14 whose mother was a widow from the tribe of Naphtali and whose father was a man of Tyre and a craftsman in bronze. Huram was highly skilled and experienced in all kinds of bronze work. He came to King Solomon and did all the work assigned to him. 15 He cast two bronze pillars, each eighteen cubits high and twelve cubits around,

Even if there were difficulties with the waw consecutives in 1Kings, people shouldn't go searching for obscure passages to explain away the plain meaning of the waw consecutive in Genesis where the normal use of the waw consecutive works very nicely in the narrative, the same way all the other waw consecutives in Genesis 2 work.

 

[Papias]

IB wrote:

Have you done the exact geological studies that supposedly say there was a 'precambrian' period? Is there anything in the Bible to support such an idea? Or have you just accepted that as truth from other men?

Have you done the exact human dissection work that supposedly say that the heart pumps blood? Is there anything in the Bible to support such an idea? Or have you just accepted that as truth from other men?

Have you done the exact transmission electron microscope work that supposedly say that these atom thingys exist? Is there anything in the Bible to support such an idea? Or have you just accepted that as truth from other men?

Have you done the exact work that supposedly say that the sperm and egg combine to produce an embryo? Is there anything in the Bible to support such an idea? Or have you just accepted that as truth from other men?

Have you done the exact physics work that supposedly say that silicon chips can do information processing? Is there anything in the Bible to support such an idea? Or have you just accepted that as truth from other men?

Have you done the exact geographical exploration work that supposedly say that Australian Aborigenies exist? Is there anything in the Bible to support such an idea? Or have you just accepted that as truth from other men?

Have you done the exact _________ work that supposedly say that the _________? Is there anything in the Bible to support such an idea? Or have you just accepted that as truth from other men?

 

[sfs]

Have you done the exact _________ work that supposedly say that the _________? Is there anything in the Bible to support such an idea? Or have you just accepted that as truth from other men?

Perhaps more to the point:

Have you done the exact work that supposedly translated the Bible from its original languages accurately? Is there anything in the Bible to support the translation accuracy? Or have you just accepted that as a truth from other men?

Have you done the exact work that supposedly transmitted the Bible from generation to generation, copy to copy, accurately? Is there anything in the Bible to support the accuracy of transmission? Or have you just accepted that as a truth from other men?

Have you done the exact work that supposedly decided which books belonged in the Bible? Is there anything in the Bible to support the accuracy of the choice? Or have you just accepted that as a truth from other men?

 

[ivebeenshown]

Have you done the exact _________ work that supposedly say that the _________? Is there anything in the Bible to support such an idea? Or have you just accepted that as truth from other men?

So, you've countered my inquiry with another inquiry (Actually, several.) We are both equals then.

I do frequently cross-reference with the original Greek and Hebrew texts when I study. For that reason I love biblos.com. As for the other books which may or may not belong in the bible, I can study those for myself if I feel it's necessary (already have studied Maccabees and Ecclesiasticus). For now I've got a big enough bite to chew on with 66 books.

I accept the bible as a truth from God. It is the only way Jesus makes sense to me.

 

[sfs]

Have you done the exact _________ work that supposedly say that the _________? Is there anything in the Bible to support such an idea? Or have you just accepted that as truth from other men?

So, you've countered my inquiry with another inquiry (Actually, several.) We are both equals then.

Yes, we're both equals in needing to rely on truths that we accept from other men (and women); asking whether something is in the Bible or not does not get around that necessity. It's not clear from your response whether you recognize that fact or not, however.

I do frequently cross-reference with the original Greek and Hebrew texts when I study. For that reason I love biblos.com.

Good. I'm translating Luke, myself, at the moment. I don't consider myself qualified to judge the quality of a translation, however; I have to rely on other humans for that. Don't you? Not to mention the need to rely on lexicons, grammars and commentaries.

As for the other books which may or may not belong in the bible, I can study those for myself if I feel it's necessary (already have studied Maccabees and Ecclesiasticus). For now I've got a big enough bite to chew on with 66 books.

I didn't ask whether you'd studied them or not. I asked whether you did the work in the first few centuries of the church to decide whether they belonged in the canon or not. You seem content to rely on the decisions of men about what belongs in the Bible, but to reject it when it comes to science. Why?

I accept the bible as a truth from God. It is the only way Jesus makes sense to me.

Good. I don't think anyone has objected to your doing that. What raised hackles was that you seemed to be dismissing all of human knowledge that one hasn't personally verified, including all of geology. If you're going to adopt that position, be consistent and apply it to your own beliefs as well.

 

[Seve]

Here's how I see it......

First off, I believe there were numerous heavenS and earth made during the process of creations..... as summarized and indicated in Genesis 2:4. Therefore, I think you need to look deeper than what you think you are seeing.

"THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF THE HEAVENS AND OF THE EARTH WHEN THEY WERE CREATED (from nothing = ex-nihilo) IN THE DAY THAT THE LORD GOD (Son) MADE (formed by hand) THE EARTH AND THE HEAVENS,...."

Now let's go back to the chronological order of the events....

1st Day = The bringing forth of the LIGHT (Son) into this physical world before anything is made that was made.......... cross ref. John 1:9 - The TRUE LIGHT.

Note: The bringing forth of the brightness of the glory of the Lord (brighter than the noon day sun) in to our physical world actually caused ..... what we now called or described as the "Big Bang" to happen in the beginning.

2nd Day = The formation of the FIRST HEAVEN (Genesis 1:6-8) = the actual location of the Garden of Eden - surrounded by waters below and above it (also destroyed their world by this same water) was beyond this world.

3rd Day = The creation of other HEAVENS (second and third heaven - see Rev. 21) - our present world - surrounded by star dust not water - ..... and the creation of our future third world (new Jerusalem) Rev. 21.

Also, this was the day (3rd) when Adam was PHYSICALLY formed from the dust of the ground - before the plant and herb.... and was brought at the garden of Eden to help till the ground.

4th day = the creation of our own sun moon and the stars.

5th day = ALL LIVING CREATURES THAT MOVETH (including "pre-historic" mankind) WERE CREATED (ex-nihilo) AND BROUGHT FORTH FROM THE WATERS of our present planet - and they were bless (Gen. 1:22) on this same 5th day similar to the way Adam and Eve were given a blessing at the garden of Eden the following 6th day (Genesis 1:28)

Note: After thousands of years of speculations... science finally agreed to what is written in the Scriptures that all living creatures orignated from the waters as documented in Genesis 1:20-21

6th day - ANIMALS / CREATURES WERE FORMED (physically made by the Son) FROM THE DUST OF THE GROUND, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND (identical and compatible to the KINDS of creatures brought forth from the water on the previous 5th day).

ALSO, this was the same day (this morning - God' time) when Adam and his generations (starting from Seth Gen. 5:1-3) were CREATED (born again spiritually in the image and likeness of God) -- LONG AFTER Adam & Eve' committed their original sin... long after Cain had already killed Abel. In other words, Adam & Eve were forgiven of their orginal sins and created spiritually in the image and likeness of God.

But that's just my insight of the Holy Scripture.

God Bless

 

[ebia]

Great. Completely destroy the points of both stories in order to producing one bit of harmonised gibberish.

 

[Seve]

Great. Completely destroy the points of both stories in order to producing one bit of harmonised gibberish.

I am sorry you have so much trouble understanding Scripture. Perhaps if you would quit blaspheming His Holy Word, He would allow you to understand a little of it.

 

[SkyWriting]

Where in the Good Book does it say that we should use nothing but The Bible to understand God's world?

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

 

[Mr Dave]

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

They were noble because of their eagerness. They tested Paul's teaching with scripture to check that what he said was true. What he was saying (that they were checking for truth) was the necessity of the suffering and resurrection of the Messiah, vv.2-3; the Berean Jews were not blindly accepting Paul's word on this matter, but checking it against their scripture.

This says nothing about using the Bible and nothing but the Bible to understand God's world.

 

[SkyWriting]

1st day: Light from darkness. Formless and deep.
2nd day: Division of 'waters'. Heaven.
3rd day: formation of the Earth and seas. Grass, herbs, fruit trees.
4th day: God set bodies of light in the Heaven.
5th day: creatures.

6th day: man and woman.
Genesis 2 adds details and expands on this day.
It's more of a narrative story and not delineated with the specific time intervals found in Gen 1.

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it...
20So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field...
22Then the Lord God made a woman...

It works smooth and easy.

 

[SkyWriting]

They were noble because of their eagerness. They tested Paul's teaching with scripture to check that what he said was true. What he was saying (that they were checking for truth) was the necessity of the suffering and resurrection of the Messiah, vv.2-3; the Berean Jews were not blindly accepting Paul's word on this matter, but checking it against their scripture.

This says nothing about using the Bible and nothing but the Bible to understand God's world.

That's exactly what it says.

The use of an Ouija Board or tarrot cards does not even come up.
But if you have evidence to the contrary...do tell.

 

[Mr Dave]

That's exactly what it says.

The use of an Ouija Board or tarrot cards does not even come up.
But if you have evidence to the contrary...do tell.

Is that comment really necessary, when have I ever so much as intonated that I think Ouija or Tarot is acceptable or an appropriate way to understand God?

I believe that Scripture is the primary authority, but this is to be understood in light of scripture itself, as well as Tradition, Reason and Experience. This is commonly called the WesleyanQuadrilateral and is one way of showing Prima Scriptura.

I do not believe in Tarot or Ouija, and think that using such things to understand God to be completely abhorrent.

The verse does not say, "thou shalt use my Scripture only to know of the things I have done, if thou useth any other method of comprehending the things historical or scientific, thou hath transgressed my law!"

 

[SkyWriting]

...you seemed to be dismissing all of human knowledge that one hasn't personally verified, including all of geology...

I wonder how we can verify all the possible conflicting prehistoric geological models?
Usually they are stories made up to take into account a given set of data.
As such, they are difficult to cross verify from a reliable source.

 

[ebia]

I am sorry you have so much trouble understanding Scripture. Perhaps if you would quit blaspheming His Holy Word, He would allow you to understand a little of it.

I've every appreciation of scripture. It's your harmonisation of it that I have a problem with.