Literalism Begets Scriptural Contradiction: Genesis 1:11, 26 and 2:5-7

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Please observe these two texts from the two accounts of creation (ESV):

Genesis 1:11, 26:

[Third Day] And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so.... [Sixth Day] Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Genesis 2:5-7:

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground-- then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

In the first account of creation, God creates the planets, trees, and whatnot before he fashions humanity.

In the second account, the Lord fashions humanity before no bushes or even small plants sprung up.

Here we have apperant contradiction in Scripture. If you do not reinterpret one of them and take both literally, then you cannot maintain an inerrantist position. If one of the accounts is not symbolic or allegorical, then Scripture stands in contradiction to itself.

Can a good six-day YE creationist, whose primary goal is to preserve the unity and truth of Scripture allow such a thing? Six-day YE creationism must be sacrificed in order to maintain the consistency of Scripture.

It is therefore incumbant on inerrantists to read the passage in such a way as to understand that it is not a scientific text, but a theological text, with purely theological themes.

The only other option is to allegorize the second creation account in favor of the first. I sumbit that this would be sheer nonsense, since the second account is clearly more historical in nature, especially when compared to the first.
​

 

[laptoppop]

No, there is no contradiction - we've gone over this before. The first one is talking about the whole earth. The second one uses different terms in Hebrew because it is talking about cultivated land -- what we might call a "farm" not a general thing. It is NOT required to overly spiritualize either one of them.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Note: Reinterpreting the six days via the framework hypothesis does not necessarily lead to a rejection of a young earth (though it severly happers it). So perhaps a rejection of 'six-day YEC' is too strong. Really, it's just a rejection of the six-days themselves.

 

[HypnoToad]

Notice in ch.2 it is bushes and plants "OF THE FIELD" - that phrase is absent in ch.1. Also notice it says the plants of ch.2 are not there yet because "there was no man to work the ground".

Ch.1 is about plants in general, wild plants. Ch.2 is about plants that need to be cultivated.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The first one is talking about the whole earth. The second one uses different terms in Hebrew because it is talking about cultivated land -- what we might call a "farm" not a general thing.

Well, they both use the term aretz (let the aretz sprout; was yet in the aretz), so it can't be a deviation in the actual term land/earth.

I assume you're asserting that the fact that there was 'no man to work the ground' implies its an agricultural setting? Well then why use the term 'ground' instead of aretz (land/earth)?

And bush of the field? Bushes aren't particurally argricultural. I live on a farm, if you must know. If this is an agricultural setting, where are the crops? I mean, isn't the Edenic state supposed to be devoid of agriculture, anyhow?

Moreover, if the purpose of the passage is to say that God created Adam in order to cultivate barren land, then why does God himself plant the garden?

Doesn't seem like the entire creation narrative has much to do with agriculture at all, really.

 

[shernren]

No, there is no contradiction - we've gone over this before. The first one is talking about the whole earth. The second one uses different terms in Hebrew because it is talking about cultivated land -- what we might call a "farm" not a general thing. It is NOT required to overly spiritualize either one of them.

Then God said, "Let the land (eretz) produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land (eretz) that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.
(Genesis 1:11 NIV)

... and no shrub of the field (saday) had yet appeared on the earth (eretz) and no plant of the field (saday) had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth (eretz) and there was no man to work the ground (adamah),
(Genesis 2:5 NIV)

To concordize the two passages, one has to introduce a reading in which the eretz of Genesis 1:11 is not the whole earth but the earth, excluding a barren portion, and the eretz of Genesis 2:5 is not the whole earth but the barren portion. Furthermore, one has to propose that the seed-bearing plants of Genesis 1:11 are not all seed-bearing plants, but seed-bearing plants excluding herbs and crops.

I think this causes the YEC claim that the eretz of Genesis 6-8 has to be global to lose a lot of traction. You cannot take eretz as the whole planet, in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 where one would expect it to take such an all-inclusive view within the context - what more in Genesis 6-8 where there is even more reason to limit the Flood as it is explicitly tied to sinful man instead of mere geography?

 

[laptoppop]

huh? your quoting the hebrew shows it clearly -- it is the word saday that is the discriminating word -- plants of the "field" -- i.e. plants for farm cultivation.

 

[HypnoToad]

And bush of the field? Bushes aren't particurally argricultural.

The Hebrew can be used for bush, plant, or shrub - it's not limited to "bushes".

I mean, isn't the Edenic state supposed to be devoid of agriculture, anyhow?

Why? Where does that idea come from?

Moreover, if the purpose of the passage is to say that God created Adam in order to cultivate barren land, then why does God himself plant the garden?

I never said Adam was made to cultivate "barren" land. He was made to cultivate what God planted. Why did God plant, instead of making Adam plant? Because He chose to.

 

[shernren]

huh? your quoting the hebrew shows it clearly -- it is the word saday that is the discriminating word -- plants of the "field" -- i.e. plants for farm cultivation.

Basically, this would show that:

1. eretz is not the whole earth either in Genesis 1 or 2,
2. "seed-bearing plants" would have to omit "plants of the field", which would be a very strange omission from a chapter in which God allegedly creates everything.

 

[laptoppop]

Where does it say in Gen 1 that this chapter describes everything God ever creates?

 

[HypnoToad]

Where does it say in Gen 1 that this chapter describes everything God ever creates?

"The heavens and the earth were completed with everything that was in them." - Gen.2:1. Yes, that's in ch.2, but they originally did not have verse and chapter numbers, and many scholars think that the first 3 or 4 verses of ch.2 actually belong at the end of ch.1.

Even so, it's not a problem because the events of ch.2 take place during the timeframe of ch.1. - chapter 2 is a more detailed account of the sixth day.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The Hebrew can be used for bush, plant, or shrub - it's not limited to "bushes".

Scrubs aren't agricultural, either. Why not say 'crops?'

I think you're reading into the text. Reread shrenren's post (#6)- it takes a lot of reading into the text to harmonize the two passages. One way other another, the text must be altered. You're doing it to the Genesis 2 passage by reading in agricultural references where there aren't any.

Why not instead read the text in a way that is both consonant with the clear realms-rulers dialectic, the overall themes of the creation narrative, Israelite monotheism and its antipathy to alternate creation stories focusing on polytheism and unintentional disorder, and, yes, the vast majority scientific consensus (I mean cosmology and astrophysics, not biology, anthropology, and evolution; that's outside the realm of Genesis 1 and the conflicting literalisms).

Why? Where does that idea come from?

You're right, my bad. I was thinking of farming starting only after the fall- 'sweat of your brow' and all that. But obviously God commands Adam to 'till and keep' the garden (keep, by the way, being the same imperative verb used later to refer to the duties of Levites guarding/keeping the temple; a foreshadowing of the serpant? a parallelism between the garden and the temple? I would say so... but again, that's another discussion).

 

[HypnoToad]

Scrubs aren't agricultural, either. Why not say 'crops?'

It does - "plants of the field" ARE crops.

I think you're reading into the text. Reread shrenren's post (#6)- it takes a lot of reading into the text to harmonize the two passages. One way other another, the text must be altered. You're doing it to the Genesis 2 passage by reading in agricultural references where there aren't any.

I haven't altered anything. I really don't see how it's hard to get cultivated plants out of "plants of the field" - seems a totally natural understanding to me.

Why not instead read the text in a way that is both consonant with the clear realms-rulers dialectic, the overall themes of the creation narrative, Israelite monotheism and its antipathy to alternate creation stories focusing on polytheism and unintentional disorder, and, yes, the vast majority scientific consensus (I mean cosmology and astrophysics, not biology, anthropology, and evolution; that's outside the realm of Genesis 1 and the conflicting literalisms).

The science, etc. is irrelevent. Your question asks about the text contradicting ITSELF, not about contradicting with man's supposed wisdom.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I haven't altered anything. I really don't see how it's hard to get cultivated plants out of "plants of the field" - seems a totally natural understanding to me.

Perhaps for you, but I suppose I need a wider imagination.

The science, etc. is irrelevent. Your question asks about the text contradicting ITSELF, not about contradicting with man's supposed wisdom.

Did you actually read what I said, or did you just see me mention science and flip out and start capitalizing words?

I said that since or if Scripture contradicts itself, why not reinterpret the passage that allows us to accord with the 1. themes of the creation narration, 2. wider biblical themes of monotheism, 3. the scientific community.

I was specifically not saying that we should reinterpret Scripture on the basis of broad scientific consensus. I said that if they contradict, which I think they do, and where are therefore forced to reinterpret one of the two passages, then why not reinterpret the passage that allows us to harmonize Scripture and the broad expert opinion of the exegetes of God's second book, the natural world.

Understand now?

 

[HypnoToad]

Perhaps for you, but I suppose I need a wider imagination.

If it's based on what we can imagine, it's totally subjective, giving no basis to reject the positions I've given.

Did you actually read what I said, or did you just see me mention science and flip out and start capitalizing words?

How did I "flip out"? I capitalized a single word for emphasis. Either you are simply misunderstanding me, or you are attempting to discredit my position by trying to make it appear as an emotional rant instead of simple reasoning. Which would be very underhanded of you, if the latter were the case. But if it's a matter of not understanding, perhaps you could ask for clarification or simply explain something in another way without jumping to accusations of ineptitude?

I said that since or if Scripture contradicts itself, why not reinterpret the passage that allows us to accord with the 1. themes of the creation narration, 2. wider biblical themes of monotheism, 3. the scientific community.

I was specifically not saying that we should reinterpret Scripture on the basis of broad scientific consensus. I said that if they contradict, which I think they do, and where are therefore forced to reinterpret one of the two passages, then why not reinterpret the passage that allows us to harmonize Scripture and the broad expert opinion of the exegetes of God's second book, the natural world.

Understand now?

Right, your whole basis starts at "if Scripture contradicts itself" - which you have not yet shown. Until you get there, attempting to "harmonize Scripture and the broad expert opinion of the exegetes of God's second book, the natural world" is unnecessary. You're jumping to step 2 without establishing step 1.

 

[Melethiel]

It does - "plants of the field" ARE crops.

Not necessarily. The first things that come to mind when I see the phrase are shrubs, bushes, small trees, grasses, and wildflowers.

 

[HypnoToad]

Not necessarily. The first things that come to mind when I see the phrase are shrubs, bushes, small trees, grasses, and wildflowers.

But the text states that one of the reasons these "plants of the field" were not present yet was because "there was no man to cultivate the ground."

How many shrubs, bushes, trees, grasses, and wildflowers require cultivation? Seems to fit the description of crops much better.

 

[Melethiel]

Crops don't require cultivation either...cultivation simply allows men to grow them in greater abundance with less competition from other species.

I would like to see someone address shernren's point about the use of eretz.

 

[HypnoToad]

Crops don't require cultivation either...cultivation simply allows men to grow them in greater abundance with less competition from other species.

Ok, fine, they don't "require" cultivation. But, what types of plants to we typically cultivate? The grasses, trees, and whatnot - or crops?

I would like to see someone address shernren's point about the use of eretz.

Well, perhaps someone can explain it, because I don't see how that applies to my reasoning on the difference of the kinds of plants being mentioned.

 

[shernren]

Where does it say in Gen 1 that this chapter describes everything God ever creates?

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
(Genesis 2:1-3 NIV)

Was God done, or wasn't He?

Crops don't require cultivation either...cultivation simply allows men to grow them in greater abundance with less competition from other species.

I would like to see someone address shernren's point about the use of eretz.

Quoting Genesis against YECs is very fun. "The Bible says it so I believe it" is their standard answer; so why won't it do right now?