Genesis & Evolution (moved)

[SkyWriting]

I would agree to disagree, for Genesis clearly makes scientific claims - they just don't match ours, thus we make them null, claiming such effort went in to make one point simple: God is Lord over creation (yes, I don't doubt that's a point in Genesis, a point made through almost every book in the Bible!) Genesis has other reasons: Notice time on Earth isn't created until the 4th day. Interesting no? Time is not universal; the time on Earth is not the same as Mars - time is subjective to the planet in which we are speaking of. Also, God made water before living creatures. If it were with out purpose, I would have supposed He would've made creatures then water for them. Instead, what we see is a process, a process in which evolution has caused many believers to go astray. Now I ask you sir, one question, "Are you a believer in what evolution states about our reality?"

History has nothing to do with science.
Scientific claims are those than can be
repeated and tested by "hostile"
researchers. We can't test historic
events. But we can predict the outcome
of future experiments. Science can only
see forward.

 

[Hoghead1]

When you say that "most" believe he edited it who are the "most"? Certainly not any modern biblical scholars, who provide a solid case there are at least for sources for the Pentateuch spanning a long historical period.

 

[BobRyan]

It all depends are whether you go on Gen. 1 or Gen. 2. According to Gen.1, first animals, then man. According to Gen. 2, first man, then animals. There sis a serious contradiction here. Also evolution nee not be godless. Many, including myself, hold with theistic evolution. In fact, I believe creation is God's own evolution from unconsciousness into self-consciousness, a point found in major Christian mystics such as Jacob Boehme and Meister Eckhart.

Gen 1 is an explicit time-boxed chronological sequence -- Genesis 2 is not. it was a style of writing that they used. Genesis 2 fills in details that are not present in Genesis 1 - and relies on the fact that the reader is only one page away from the chronology into which to fit those details.

Not exactly calculus or rocket science needed to place the added details where they go in the chronology previously given.

 

[Hoghead1]

Bob, it is clear from the text that Gen. 2 is providing a time-based chronology. You can't read it back into Gen. 1 because it contradicts the sequence given there. For example, in Gen. 1, the animals are there before man comes along. In Gen. 2, they don't come along until afterwards. If you read 12 into 2, you get Adam having to have a woman with him before Eve was created. But 2 makes no mention of that. If you read Gen. 2 back into one, then again you are faced with a contradiction. 1 has all the animals created before Adam, 2 has animals created afterwards. So, then, is 1 saying animals were created both before and after Adam came? See it doesn't take rocket science to see the two accounts give contradictory chronologies, which is one reason why biblical scholars view them as wholly separate accounts. Also, I don't know what you mean when you refer to some kind of literature.

Why don't you do this? Write out a detailed account of how you see the accounts as working. Show how you are reading Gen. 2 back into 1. That would be helpful here.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, it is clear from the text that Gen.

It is clear from Genesis 2 - that the chapter is NOT providing a time-boxed chronological sequence -- by contrast to Genesis 1.

In Genesis 1 - each sequence has "events list.. and evening and morning were Nth day" -- nothing of that time-boxed chronological sequence shows up in Genesis 2.

You can then fit Genesis 2 "details" that have no time-boxed chronological sequence - into the information already provided as 'context' to Genesis 2 - rather than simply ignoring all of it.
See it doesn't take rocket science to see the two accounts give complimentary information one providing added detail while the first provides the time-boxed chronological sequence in which to insert the detail.

For the simplest of examples -

Genesis 1
9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.


Genesis 2
4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

No mention of which day anything is happening in Gen 2:4-6 -- just facts... details given.
The added detail for day 3 in Genesis 1 is that there was no rain.

The other detail we have is that the "farming" activity described in Gen 2:5 did not yet exist.

As I said - this is pretty easy to see in the text.

 

[Hoghead1]

My point is that it I easy to see from text that Gen. 2 is giving a definite chronological order. That is why the text is ordered the way it is. It is giving a sequence of events. It may not refer to days, since it is written by a different author with a different chronology. For example, in Gen. 1, man and woman are created togehte4r, if not a the same time, at least the same day. Gen, 23 has a different time sequence. First Adam, then the animals, then Eve. If you are trying to read n Gen. 1 into 2, you hit a major conflict. If 1 is any indication, then the creation of the animals took a day. Hence, between the creation of Adam and that of Eve, at least one day passed. Hence, in 2, they were not created on the same day, as per 1.

Corrects me if I am wrong, but I other your hypothesis goes something like this: Gen. 1 and 2 represent a single, unified bod of thought composed by a single author. The contradictions one might see between this is in mere appearance only. They are easily explained away by simply assuming the author, in his exposition of Gen. 1, simply played fast and loose with the chronology of Gen. 1, simply jumped about hither and you, now talking about Day 5, now 4, now 5 again, etc. If that is the case, then you are in for some real explaining on your part. Where in the texts does it state his is what the author is doing? Where does the text say Gen. 2 was ever intended to be a continuation of Gen. 1? Why would the author write in such a way? It sure seems a strange way to write. I mean, why would a writer go to the trouble of coming up with a systematic chronology, on page one, and then on the very next page jump handle maters in a most unsystematic way by jumping al around? Page one, he is into lists; page two, he throws the lists aside in his writing. Do you think this was a major literary style at the time? Can you find other biblical passages that do the same? Another problem here is that in addition to the contradictions, modern biblical scholarship assume two different accounts here because the linguistic style of each is radically different from that of the other. So, where did all the experts go wrong? How did you, with apparently no knowledge of biblical history or Hebrews, manage to outsmart the experts? What is your secret? I think the explanation I to be found n the fact that Judaism, historically contained two of everything. Ask two rabbis, you get three different opinions. Ancient Judaism had two kingdoms, two different Bibles, two different 1ist of Commandments(The Samaritan Pentateuch contains 11), etc. In an effort to unify the people, after the Exile, the editors sometimes butt edited two different accounts, in order to represent everyone, satisfy everyone, and draw dives groups together. Another example in the Bible is the death of Goliath. 2 Sam. 21:19 claims that Elhanan, not David killed Goliath. The reason for this is that David probably pushed the notion that he did it, while aopposing group stated someone else did it.

 

[BobRyan]

Genesis 2
4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

No mention of which day anything is happening in Gen 2:4-6 -- just facts... details given.
The added detail for day 3 in Genesis 1 is that there was no rain.

The other detail we have is that the "farming" activity described in Gen 2:5 did not yet exist.

My point is that it I easy to see from text that Gen. 2 is giving a definite chronological order.

No chronological order there - at "best" you can suppose a "sequence". Time-boxed chronology as you have in Gen 1 - states for each part in the sequence the very specific unit of time for it. "And evening and morning were the nth day" - this is irrefutable in Genesis 1 and is totally lacking in Genesis 2.

Corrects me if I am wrong, but I other your hypothesis goes something like this: Gen. 1 and 2 represent a single, unified bod of thought composed by a single author.

True. Genesis 1 provides the time-boxed chronological sequence and Genesis 2 provides added details about marriage, about the way the earth was watered that differs from today, about the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of evil, about the command given to Adam and Eve etc.

All "details" not found in Genesis 1.

None of them with a "time-boxed chronology" that we see in Genesis 1.

The contradictions one might see between this is in mere appearance only. They are easily explained away by simply assuming the author, in his exposition of Gen. 1, simply played fast and loose with the chronology of Gen. 1,

Except there is no chronology in Gen 2- at "best" one could infer certain wooden sequences.

Why would the author write in such a way? It sure seems a strange way to write.

Turns out this is a style of writing that is also used by Hebrew writers throughout the Bible. They used chiastic structure and the repeat-and-expand style of writing. For example in Genesis 6 the flood subject is introduced. But in Genesis 7,8,9 the subject is expanded - not as a contradiction to Genesis 6 - but as enlargement on the details.

In Daniel 7 the persecution of the saints following the rise of the Pagan Roman empire and preceding the 2nd coming is introduced but in Dan 8 and 9 we find details in that timeline fleshed out with even more information.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Hoghead1]

Bob, first of all, in the other cases you cite, the working out of the details follows a definite chronological order. The writers do not jump around, as you allege the author of Genesis is doing. Secondly, Gen. 2 does present a chronology. It does not refer t days, because it is by a different author at a different time. Thirdly, it does not expand on Gen. 1. As I mentioned before, Gen. 1 says man was created in the image of the gods. Gen. 2 says out of mud or dust. If man is made in the image of God, does God look like mud? Gen. 1 leaves it unclear whether God creates out of nothing or something preexistent. Gen. 2 does not expand on this. Gen. 1 does not say how, when, or why God creates. Gen. 2 says nothing here either. How it is a further elaboration of 1, then? Note3 that Gen. 1 is one page long and so is the creation section of Gen. 2. Hence, it cannot be adding much more than Gen. 1 and then really isn't a further exposition. Fifthly, as I said Gen. 2 does give chronology. You can see this in the cause-and-effect relationships it speaks of. Adam came along, something he does causes God to see it is not good for him to be alone, and God, then, responds by creating animals, a woman. Gen. 1 won't allow for that, as the animals w2ere seen as created before Adam came along. Gen. 1 sees man and woman created at the same time. Gen. 2 sees a time period elapsing between their individual creations. Since Gen. 2 does not use the days chronology, it is difficult to see how much time the author assumes elapsed, but it appears substantial. Adam has to demonstrate some trouble before the animals have to be created, etc., some trouble afterwards, which again cause God to see it isn't good for him to be alone, before Eve comes along. I doubt if this happened all over night. So the chronologies of the creations of man and woman contradict themselves between the two accounts. Sixthly, you did not address a key point I made here abbot the language being very different between 1 and 2.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, first of all, in the other cases you cite, the working out of the details follows a definite chronological order.

True - which is why I also added this simple example.

Genesis 1
9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.


Genesis 2
5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

No mention of which day anything is happening in Gen 2:4-6 -- just facts... details given.
The added detail for day 3 in Genesis 1 is that there was no rain.

The other detail we have is that the "farming" activity described in Gen 2:5 did not yet exist.

As I said - this is pretty easy to see in the text.

The writers do not jump around, as you allege the author of Genesis is doing.

Then you did not read the examples carefully. In the expansion from Daniel 7 to 9... chapter 9 actually jumps to Jeremiah's 70 years - then leaps back to the start of the timeline for Daniel 8.

Details matter. This is simply a style of writing.

Secondly, Gen. 2 does present a chronology.

It presents a loose sequence - and no chronology at all. It is impossible to tell in Genesis 4-end how much time elapsed.

It does not refer t days,

That is true. The time element is not there at all.

By contrast to the time-boxed chronological sequence of Gen 1.

because it is by a different author at a different time.

I find your speculation and logic a bit "illusive" just then. Writers that write and different times can still record/report/write-about a time-boxed chronological sequence - that happens all the time.

But that is not happening in Genesis 2 as even you have admitted there is not time-boxing going on there.

Thirdly, it does not expand on Gen. 1.

until you read Genesis 1 and 2 and notice the details. plants are created in genesis 1 - but no reference to watering the earth or rain or mist or.. for that detail we need Genesis 2.

Mankind - man and woman are created in Genesis 1 - but no reference to marriage or the command from God regarding the Tree of knowledge of evil. For that added detail you need Genesis 2.

As I mentioned before, Gen. 1 says man was created in the image of the gods. Gen. 2 says out of mud or dust. If man is made in the image of God, does God look like mud?

I find your logic illusive just then - since all people today start off as boneless, organ-less fluid zygotes and we do not ask the rather nonsensical "is man just a jelly like mass??"

Please be serious.


Gen. 1 leaves it unclear whether God creates out of nothing or something preexistent. for that detail we need Genesis 2.

Gen 1 gives us the 7 day timeline.

 

[BobRyan]

Hebrew scholars of standing have always regarded this to be the case. Thus, Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

 

[Hoghead1]

Hebrew scholars of standing have always regarded this to be the case. Thus, Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't see the relevance of your comment about the scholars today. If we are on scholars today, however, I would stress there are generally in agreement the Gen. 1 and 2 give discrepant chronologies and were written by different authors at different times. The example you gave from the prophetic books is not relevant here, as the "jumping around" can be seen as clearly just that. In Gen. 2, there is nothing to tell us there is this jumping around. You are guessing that is the case and that5 Gen. 2 is a further explication of 1, but there is nothing in the texts they make such a claim. Next, your basic assumption seems to be that the author of 2 has in mind a chronology wholly different from the sequence of events given in his account. That is a dangerous assumption. Unless, you are into some sort of telepathic communication with the author, you have no idea what he is thinking. The only thing you can go on is the text itself. The only way you would know of the chronology of the author is by how he gives the sequence of events on paper. Furthermore, you can write off anything with this argument that the author has a different chronology in mind from what he wrote. What do you assume Gen. 2is a further explication of Gen. 1? The sequence they appear, Gen. 2 coming after Gen. 1. Now, with your idea in mind, I could easily reverse things and play games all day. I could argue that Gen. 1 is a response to Gen. 2. That the real chronology the author of Gen. 1 has in mind is really that of Gen. 2. Gen. 1 came later, and the author, though holding with the chronology of gen. 2, simply modified this on paper because he was trying to streamline the worship services and fight polytheism. So he decided to talk in terms of days to make the point that everyday we should worship Elohim, rather than following the pagan notion that each day is for a different god. The written sequence does not reflect the author's private chronology, because the days sequence e better meets the needs of worshipers. Indeed, many scholars feel the 1 is actually a much later text than 2, which, taken in itself, is another reason why 2 is not an explication of 1.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't see the relevance of your comment about the scholars today.

My point is that even the atheists and agnostics see that the literature itself is promoting a 7 day timeline for creation - and even you admitted that you cannot find that sort of chronological 7 day timeline in Genesis 2 ...

Because as we all know by now - Genesis 2 is not a time-boxed chronological sequence.

The example you gave from the prophetic books is not relevant here

It is relevant because it shows the very think I stated - chiastic structure and also the "expand and enlarge" model for details where some of those details are later and some earlier even though they all come in later text.

there is no time-boxed chronology in Genesis 2 -- and that is simply the fact of the literature itself - even those atheists do not declare the timeline of genesis to be anything other than what we find in Genesis 1:2-2:3

 

[Hoghead1]

Gen. 2 does provide what does appear to be a very definite sequence of events, including cause-an-effect relationships, which violate the order of one. Furthermore, there is no evidence in 2 of it jumping around, going forward, then backward. It stands on its own as a coherent chronology. The chronology appears to be in sound order. The only way you could see it as jumping around is to assume the author of 2 is really the author of 1, further explaining 1. The reason why you might assume that is simply the order in which the material presented, Gen. 1 coming before Gen. 2. But you yourself said that the sequential order in which things appear on the paper is not necessarily representing the underlying chronology. So, here is something to think about: Generally scholars see Gen. 1 as being composed at a much later period than 2, which came much earlier. So in no way is 2 a further exposition of 1. Remember, the way things appear on the page is not their chronological order. Next, about atheists and agnostics: It depends whom you are speaking with. Many atheists, and this is easily found online, support their position by arguing there are all kinds of contradictions. in Scripture, including the discrepancy between Gen. 1 and 2. Others who maybe do not refer to any contradiction here is simply persons who have not read the text carefully or not done a careful literary study of the Bible. I have fund many atheists and believers alike cannot recite the Ten Commandments completely or in order. Acceptance or rejection of Scripture is not always by a careful reading, as it should be. Next, some have trouble seeing contradictions, largely because they hold with the inerrancy of Scripture. However, the inerrancy theory is simply a pre-scientific, human-made theory about Scripture and what it represents. Like many human-made theories, some aspects of it have stood the sands of time, others not.

 

[BobRyan]

Indeed if you had only Genesis 2 for a "sequence" you would have to fill in a lot of gaps trying to make it into an entire story.

But given that we have the Gen 1:2-2:3 time-boxed chronological sequence for the Genesis 2 details -- we know exactly how they flesh out the account of origins.

So clear and glaringly obvious that even atheists and agnostics "get the point" when reading the text as James Barr proves for us.

Rather than being confused and befuddled about whether the text is describing a literal 7 day time-boxed chronological sequence in Genesis - we find this --

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know."

 

[Hoghead1]

Bob, the problem is that Gen. 1 and 2 provide highly conflicting chronologies. As I have said before,Gen. 2 presents an orderly sequence of events, with no funny business, no jumping around, etc. Since writers who go that way generally have a chronology in mind, the safest bet is that Gen. 2 is intended to be a chronology. Furthermore, Gen. 2 provides cause-and-effect relationships, and that mean before-and-after, and that is a chronology to the hilt. Hence, the contradiction: Gen. 2 has the animals created after Adam, as a response to his situation. Gen. 1 has them created before. Now if want to see them as one account, you have to show ways to overcome the contradiction, and good luck on that one. Arguing that the texts have the same author and therefore the writer of 2 really has in mind the chronology of 1 makes absolutely no sense and is totally impossible to verify.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, the problem is that Gen. 1 and 2 provide highly conflicting chronologies.

Only if one first imagines Genesis 2 to be a time-boxed chronological sequence... which it is not.

The genesis account is that of a 7 day creation week - such a limited timeline - nor ANY timeline is not found at all in Genesis 2 - because it merely adds details to the "context" for it - which is set by Genesis 1:2-2:3.

More than a little obvious since in all cases when reading the Bible a key part of exegesis is looking at the setting in the letter/book where the chapter occurs "as context".

This is basics. It is about as easy as Bible interpretation gets!

As I have said before -

Genesis 2
5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

No mention of which day anything is happening in Gen 2:4-6 -- just facts... details given.
The added detail for day 3 in Genesis 1 is that there was no rain.

No time limit at all in Genesis 2.

In the myopic view that takes Genesis 2 alone... no air, no seas, no birds, no fish, no sun, moon or stars, nothing specified for animals to eat, --- and NO TIME in which it was done!

In the myopic view that takes Genesis 1 and its SEVEN day creation alone -- without the details of Gen 2 -- no marriage, no tree of life, no tree of knowledge of evil, no order of creation for mankind where MAN comes before woman in order of existence, no explanation about rain vs mist watering the earth.


==================

By contrast the "time-boxed chronological sequence" in Gen 1 provides "evening and morning" units of time explicitly.

And 'yes' -- Daniel 9 does "jump back in time" to a start point before Daniel 7.

The very thing you say cannot be done in scripture by one author!

As I have said before,Gen. 2 presents an orderly sequence of events, with no funny business, no jumping around, etc. Since writers who go that way generally have a chronology in mind, the safest bet is that Gen. 2 is intended to be a chronology. Furthermore, Gen. 2 provides cause-and-effect relationships, and that mean before-and-after, and that is a chronology to the hilt. Hence, the contradiction:

That is called "contradiction created/gained/manufactured from extreme inference" not the details in the two pages we are reading.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Hoghead1]

Well, I sure never heard it called that before and am not sure where you are going with it. You need to present evidence for your claim. You also need to address my arguments . How on earth can two account be the same when one says the animals were created before Adam, and the other afterwards? It doesn't take rocket science to see a major contradiction here. Now, if you have some insight that will just dazzle the rest of us into erasing the contradiction, let's hear it. Also the situation with Daniel is not at all analogous. In Daniel you can clearly see it is a flash forward or b ack. In Gen. 1 and 2, there is absolutely no evidence of all sort flash backs or forwards.

 

[BobRyan]

Well, I sure never heard it called that before and am not sure where you are going with it. You need to present evidence for your claim. You also need to address my arguments . How on earth can two account be the same when one says the animals were created before Adam, and the other afterwards?

1. They are not two acccounts - but rather one account.
2. there are no chapters in the actual text.
3. There is no time-boxed chronological sequence in Genesis 2.
4. There is no statement in Genesis two saying "after God created man - he then created animals".
5. By contrast in Genesis 1 - on days 5 and 6 God created animals in a time-boxed chronological sequence - and ends day 6 with the creation of mankind - all on the same "evening and morning". --

It doesn't take rocket science to see a major contradiction the points you merely 'assume' in a chapter that has no time-boxed chronological sequence at all. In fact nothing at all is stated in Genesis 2 for the details in terms of how many decades, centuries, millennia... for the time you need Genesis 1.

Now, if you have some insight that will just dazzle the rest of us into erasing the contradictions between your own assumptions vs the facts in the actual chapters, let's hear it.

Also the situation with Daniel is instructive as it also demonstrates Hebrew writings styles - with the same Chiastic structure and the same 'expand and enlarge' pattern that adds details to the picture the way we do today with transparencies laid on top of each other.

 

[BobRyan]

Genesis 2 with your eisegetic assumptions inserted as IF they were part of the text.


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. 6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.

7 And immediately after creating plants and mist or a million years later the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 Then after creating Adam or a million years later- the Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.

9 Then after creating the Garden or a million years later - God 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.

==============================

Now we try Genesis 2 - as written - as a set of details to be inserted into the framework of the time-boxed chronological sequence already given by the time the reader gets to chapter 2.


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. 6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.

7 And 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.

8 The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.

9 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.